and re-establishment of the historical memory in a democratic society. 333 In this regard, the Court underlines the observations of Mr. González Medina’s family regarding the importance of recovering their father’s name and persona. 334 303. Consequently, this Court finds it appropriate that the State make an audiovisual documentary on the life of Narciso González Medina, in which reference is made to his journalistic, literary and creative work, and also to his contribution to Dominican culture, the content of which must be agreed previously with the victims and their representatives. The State must assume all the expenses arising from the production, screening and distribution of this video. The documentary video must be shown on a State television channel that broadcasts nationally, once, and the family and representatives must be given sufficient notice of the timing of this broadcast. In addition, the State must show the video during a public act in Santo Domingo, either in a specific act or during the act of acknowledgement of responsibility (supra para. 297). The said act must be organized with the participation of the victims or their representatives. In addition, the documentary must be distributed as widely as possible among the victims, their representatives, and the country’s main universities in order to promote it. The State has two years, from notification of this Judgment, to make the documentary, and show and distribute it. C.4) Guarantee of non-repetition: adoption of domestic legal provisions to ensure effective investigation of forced disappearance 304. In its final written arguments, the Commission observed that it had been proved that “the Dominican legal framework was inadequate to investigate what happened to Narciso González as a forced disappearance of persons with all its constituent elements,” and “the Court should take this into account specifically” when establishing the reparations. 305. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to make forced disappearance an autonomous crime in accordance with the relevant international standards, in particular Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Additionally, they indicated that the Court should ask the Dominican State to consider ratifying this instrument. 306. The Court concludes that the State failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention to adopt the necessary domestic measures and provisions to ensure an effective investigation of the forced disappearance of Narciso González Medina and the identification, prosecution and, as appropriate, punishment of those responsible (supra paras. 242 to 246). Consequently, the Court decides that, within a reasonable time, the Dominican Republic must ensure that the application of the norms of its domestic law and the functioning of its institutions permit conducting an adequate investigation of forced disappearance and, should the said norms be insufficient, it must make the legislative reforms or adopt the necessary administrative, judicial or other measures to achieve this goal. C.5) Other measures requested 333 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 356, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 236, para. 228. 334 Cf. Statement made by Jennie Rosanna González Ramírez on June 16, 2011, supra note 99, folio 1122, and statement made by Luz Altagracia Ramírez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held in this case on June 28, 2011. 91