15 Thus, this Court reiterates that education in human rights for security agencies, and the police and the armed forces is crucial to guarantee that events such as those in this case shall not be repeated. 49. That therefore, this Court values positively the initiatives of a general nature carried out by the State, through the National University Institute for Penitentiary Studies and Ombudsman, in relation to the two issues in this obligation. However, this Court considers that over three years have elapsed since the Judgment was issued and no detailed information about specific activities evidencing any progress made regarding training of law enforcement officials or in the design and implementation of human rights programs for police and prison agents has been provided. Given the scarce information sent by the State regarding a “syllabus design including training in various areas” for prison agents, this Court considers it essential that the State provides official, orderly, detailed and updated information about this matter. 50. That due to the above and in order to assess the adequacy of these and other activities according to the reparation ordered by this Court, the State must refer to the following issues in its next report: i) the activities carried out after the Judgment evidencing the training received by the armed forces to ensure effectively the right to life and avoid the disproportionate use of force, and presenting the design and implementation of a training program on human rights and international standards regarding individuals held in custody, addressed to police and prison agents; ii) the content, duration, frequency and number of participants of such activities, and iii) the result of same or information evidencing the effectiveness of such measures. * * * 51. That as regards to the obligation to acknowledge publicly, within the term of six months as from the date of service of the Judgment, its international liability and ask for forgiveness, in relation to the violations declared in the Judgment (operative paragraph 12 of the Judgment), the State has not provided any information about its compliance. 52. That the representatives underscored that the State did not take any action to comply with this obligation. Thus, “since the term established by the […] Court has already elapsed and [taking into account] that this issue does not deserve any complex proceedings for compliance[,]a month is more than sufficient time to complete [it] and it would be adequate to do so on the next anniversary of [the] massacre on November 27.” On this matter, the representatives highlighted that the acknowledgement of international liability “is particularly important [because] it becomes a guarantee that such facts shall not be repeated and also as a satisfaction measure; therefore, it must be known by the Venezuelan society, taking into account the nature of the events [in this case].” 53. That for the Commission “the lack of information on the progress made to comply with [this] measure of reparation ordered in the Judgment is a matter of concern”, particularly because “it does not conform with the acknowledgement made by the State in a public hearing related to this case.” To that end, the Commission highlighted that “one of the things that the [victims’ next of kin] were asking for [in view of the acknowledgement of liability by the State in the public hearing of the case] was that the liability for these horrible events was [also] acknowledged in Venezuela.” The Commission observed that the State did not submit a compliance schedule regarding these matters and to that end “it request[ed] the Court to report on [such] compliance, according to its commitment.”