15 perpetrated in this case be tolerated and by the establishment of a foundation for the purpose of promoting and disseminating international human rights law throughout the region where the events occurred.” It did not, however, support the requests by the victims' representatives for “publication in the major international newspapers.” 51. In its brief of January 3, 1996 the State declared that the non-pecuniary reparations sought by the Commission were not consistent with “either international case law in general, or with the case law of the Inter-American Court in particular.” The State considered that the satisfaction sought by the Commission on behalf of the victims had been covered in the claim for moral damages, and claimed that “[t]he honor and reputation of the victims and their next of kin have been fully restored with the Court’s judgment on the merits ... and with the recognition of responsibility - prior and subsequent - by the Republic of Venezuela for the events that took place.” 52. In the aforementioned brief of November 3, 1995, the Commission requested the reform of the Military Code of Justice, specifically Article 54(2) and (3), and of any military regulations and instructions that are incompatible with the Convention. That article states in its operative part that: [t]he President of the Republic, as a functionary of military justice, is empowered ... 2) To order that a military trial not be held in certain cases, when he deems it in the national interest. 3) To order the discontinuance of military trials, when he deems it advisable, in any circumstances. 53. In the same brief the Commission called for an investigation and “effective punishment of the physical and intellectual authors, of the accomplices and of those who sought to cover up the events that gave rise to the instant case.” 54. In its aforementioned brief of January 3, 1996, the State claimed that the Commission's request bore no relation to the events and to the State's responsibility, inasmuch as redress necessitates restoring the situation that existed prior to the events that gave rise to its responsibility. It maintained that “[n]othing that the Commission seeks in this regard can represent this type of restoration. The Code of Military Justice is not, per se, incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights.” 55. With regard to the investigation and effective punishment of the perpetrators of the acts, the State argued that it is clear that the Judgment of the Inter-American Court can do more than order the appropriate indemnities without infringing the rights of those allegedly implicated. Compensation of the victims and their next of kin, recognition of the international responsibility of the Venezuelan state, and the condemnatory judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are the ideal means of making reparation - as far as possible - for the damages caused to the victims and their next of kin. 56. In short, the Commission defines the non-pecuniary reparations as: reform of the Code of Military Justice and those military regulations and instructions that are incompatible with the Convention; investigation and effective punishment of the physical and intellectual authors, of their accomplices and of those who sought to cover up the acts that gave rise to the instant case; satisfaction of the victims by restoring their honor and reputation, and the unequivocal establishment of the facts; satisfaction of the international community through the declaration that acts such as those that occurred in this case will not be tolerated; and the creation of a foundation for the promotion and dissemination of international human rights law in the region in which the events occurred.