set forth in Article 28(2) of the Convention falls outside the purpose of the case. 72. In this judgment, this Court found that the regulation established in Law 1908 constituted a breach of Article 2 of the American Convention (supra para. 56). The Court therefore finds that, within a reasonable period of time, the state must adapt its domestic legal system in accordance with the parameters established in this judgment. In this regard, the Court notes that the criminal procedural legislation in force in the Province of Mendoza at the time of the facts was repealed by Law 6,730 of 1999, amended by Law 9,040 published in 201896 (supra para. 42). Likewise, the Court notes that article 503 of Law 1,908, which established the grounds for admissibility of a cassation appeal at the time of the facts97 and which would have been the legal provision preventing a comprehensive review of the judgment convicting Mr. Gorigoitía, is substantially identical to Article 47498 of Law 6,730 of 1999, amended by Law 9,040 published in 2018, which regulates the same issue and is in force.99 73. As regards the foregoing, the Court notes that in the case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, it concluded that the State of Argentina failed to comply with its obligation contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 8(2)(h) and 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of the victims of the case by virtue of the fact that articles 474 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Mendoza and 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Nation, respectively, did not allow for review of matters of fact and/or evidence by a higher court.100 Consequently, in that case, the state was ordered to ensure that the judges conduct review of compliance with human rights conventions in order to guarantee the right to appeal a ruling in accordance with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and the case law of this Court. The Court likewise ordered that, within a reasonable period of time, the state must adapt its domestic legal system in accordance with the parameters established in the judgment.101 74. Taking into account the foregoing, in view of the similarity between the present case and the case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, with regard to this guarantee of non-repetition, its compliance will be supervised by the Court jointly with the supervision corresponding to compliance with the judgment in the case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. C. Other measures requested 75. The representatives asked that Argentina be ordered to: (i) provide free family therapy services to Mr. Gorigoitía and his family; (ii) issue a public apology from the state, the text of which would be delivered in a ceremony attended by the family of Mr. Gorigoitía, and (iii) provide Nicolás Gorigoitía with a scholarship for training in an institution suitable to his conditions and subject to his acceptance of its execution. 76. The state reiterated that the measures sought are not consistent with the case’s factual and legal records, and the measures must therefore be ordered by the competent domestic courts 96 This law transformed the Criminal Chambers and criminal courts in criminal into collegiate criminal tribunals and courts, respectively, and their authorities were reformulated. 97 Article 503 – The cassation appeal may be filed for the following grounds: 1) Disregard or erroneous application of the substantive law. 2) Disregard for the provisions established by this code regarding inadmissibility, expiration, or nullity, provided that, with the exception of cases of absolute nullity, the appellant has promptly sought rectification of the defect, if possible, or filed a cassation appeal. 98 Article. 474 – Grounds. The cassation appeal may be filed for the following grounds:1) Disregard or erroneous application of the substantive law. 2) Disregard for the provisions established by this code regarding inadmissibility, expiration, or nullity, provided that, with the exception of cases of absolute nullity, the appellant has promptly sought rectification of the defect, if possible, or filed a cassation appeal. 99 Whose content is still regulated in article 474 of Law 6,730. 100 Cf. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, Operative Paragraph 22 and paras. 301-303. 101 Cf. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, Operative Paragraph 22 and para. 332. 22