Therefore, it is not appropriate to order measures of non-repetition in relation to the application of preventive detention in Venezuela. 208. On the other hand, the Court notes that the human rights violations relating to the deprivation of liberty suffered by the victims are mainly based on the application of a legal order that is no longer in force and it is not apparent from the facts that those human rights violations, or others declared in this Judgment, have a causal nexus, principally or with a relevant body, with the individual conduct of officials who, by violating human rights, do not fulfill their functions or do not obey their legal mandates. Therefore, it is not appropriate to order measures of training. 209. In addition, the Court did not find a lack in the internal legal order of Venezuela of appropriate and effective remedies to obtain reparation for the human rights violations arising from the improper use of preventive detention (supra paras. 159 to 166). Therefore, it is not appropriate to order that Venezuela adopt measures in this area. 210. Lastly, the Court considers that the delivery of this Judgment and the measures of satisfaction already ordered, together with the other reparations that have been ordered in the Judgment, are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victims. Therefore, it does not deem it necessary to order a public act of apology. F) Compensation 211. The Commission requested that the human rights violations be fully repaired pecuniarily and non-pecuniarily, by means of measures of economic compensation. 212. The representatives asked that the Court determine: a) As to pecuniary damages, in equity, “the funeral expenses of [Olimpiades González]” in the total amount of US$ 3,000. Referring to “the judicial activity of the victims at the domestic level,” they asked that the Court determine, in equity, the sum of US$ 22,000. As to the medical expenses, the representatives requested, in equity, the sum of US$ 5,000 each for Belkis, María Angélica and Aura.184 They also requested, in equity, reparation for the concept of “family patrimonial” damages in the amount of US$ 15,000 “for each of the parents, Aura and Fernando González.” They also asked that Court to set a compensation for lost wages, in equity, in the amount of US$ 150,000 in favor of each of the parents of Olimpiades, Fernando and Aura. As to the lost wages “for the period of arbitrary detention of liberty,” they asked, notes that Ms. Vásquez González considered that the current legal order is incompatible with the Constitution with respect to the manner it which it was adopted, as well as that “it openly limits the right to being tried while in liberty.” She did not mention the current norms, similar to Article 182 applied in this case, that are considered contrary to the American Convention by the Court, but her assertion was based on another aspect of current legislation. It is not for the Court, in the context of the present case, to evaluate current legislation adopted after the events examined and that are not related to them or to the human rights violations declared in this Judgment. The representatives indicated, with respect to María Angélica and Belkis Mirelis, “the psychological torture, the continual harassment, discrimination and violence by the police and their “enemies” that continued during all of these years.” They specifically stated that María Angélica suffered from “diabetes and nervous problems, among some of the sequelae” and that Belkis Mirelis suffered from “chronic stress, caused by the great suffering and anguish, which have caused fears, tremors, social isolation and a difficulty to join the labor market.” They added that “she suffers from diabetes and arrythmia as a consequence of […] what they had lived through.” They also pointed out that Aura, the mother of María Angélica, Belkis and Olimpiades, developed “diabetes and as a result one of her legs was amputated.” 184 51