environment, and that lead to sanctions for those responsible and appropriate redress for the victims.” 236. The representatives stated to the Court that “they consider that in order to prevent victims, as well as other persons in a similar situation, from becoming victims of impunity, there must be appropriate protocols for conducting investigations that are consistent with due process and with sensitivity for the victims.” 237. The State did not refer to this type of measure of reparation. 238. In this case, the Court did not find that that the domestic legislation was contrary to international standards (supra paras. 130 to 133, 159 and 164) as regards the investigation of the facts, nor was the possible infringement of Article 2 of the American Convention discussed. Therefore, the Court does not consider it appropriate to order a measure of reparation related to the creation of investigation protocols. C.3.2. Design and implementation of a comprehensive public policy of protection for defenders of human rights and the environment 239. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “[d]evelop appropriate and prompt measures for an institutional response that would ensure the effective protection of human rights defenders in situations of risk.” 240. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to “create and put into operation a comprehensive public policy aimed at protecting human rights defenders.” 241. For its part, the State argued that “[c]ontrary to the affirmations of the [Commission], Honduras has made determined efforts to implement a comprehensive policy that is conducive to the protection of environmental defenders.” In this regard, it pointed to the creation of a Special Prosecutor for the Environment; a Special Prosecutor for the Ethnic Affairs and Cultural Heritage; a Prosecutor for Human Rights; a National Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretariat for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, AfroHondurans and Racial Equality Policies; the Secretariat for Justice and Human Rights; the drafting and approval of the “First Public Policy for Human Rights,” and the “National Action Plan for Human Rights,” and the dissemination of the Project for “the Law on Protection Mechanisms for Human Rights Defenders, Justice Operators, Journalists and Social Communicators.” 242. Similarly, the Court assesses positively the information submitted by the State in relation to the issuance and approval of the “First Public Policy for Human Rights” 333 and the “National Action Plan for Human Rights,” approved through Executive Decree No. PCM-0452012 of November 27, 2012,334 and the dissemination of the draft for “the Law on Protection Mechanisms for Human Rights Defenders, Justice Operators, Journalists and Social Communicators.”335 243. On this matter, the Court takes note of the comments made by the expert Luis Enrique Eguren in this regard, that “[w]hen a general context of risk exists for the defense 333 Cf. Executive Summary of the First Public Policy on Human Rights and the National Action Plan for Human Rights (Merits file, pages 763 to 809). 334 Cf. Executive Decree No. PCM-045-2012 of November 27, 2012 (Merits file, pages 730 to 736). 335 Cf. Law for Protection Mechanisms for Human Rights Defenders, Justice Operators and Journalists and Social Communicators (File of Merits, pages 739 to 760). 69