85 victims by providing them with previous, clear and sufficient background information. Consequently, the State must allocate to each of the victims, only once, within a term of two months as of notification of this Judgment, the amount of US$ 7.500,00 (seven thousand five hundred dollars of the United States of America) on account of specialized medical and psychological treatment, as well as medicines and other related expenses. ii) Deleting the victims’ names from all criminal records 222. The representatives sustained that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “are innocent” of the accusations for which they were sentenced. Therefore, the representatives requested the Court to order the Mexican State “to take all the necessary measures to delete immediately the names of Messrs. Montiel and Cabrera from any criminal record as well as to permanently delete any criminal record for the facts reported in this case.” The State pointed out that it was not applicable to delete the criminal record of the petitioners in this case, reiterating that no violations of the American Convention have been committed and that their release was due to “humane considerations and not to procedural faults.” 223. The Court has noted in other cases that it is not a criminal court that analyzes the criminal liability of individual and that it shall not decide on the guilt or innocence of individuals, since this is a matter of the domestic criminal jurisdiction.331 Based on the foregoing and of the violations declared in this Judgment, this Tribunal considers that it is not possible to order a measure of reparation under the terms requested. C.3 Guarantees of Non-Repetition i) Adapting domestic law to international standards regarding justice 224. The Commission requested the Court to order Mexico to limit the scope of its military jurisdiction. The representatives requested that “the State […] must be ordered to amend article 57 of the Code of Military Justice, in order to establish, in a clear and precise manner and with no ambiguities, that military justice must abstain from hearing any violations of human rights allegedly committed by members of the Mexican armed forces, whether on duty or not, in any alleged situation.” Likewise, the representatives requested to establish an “effective remedy to challenge the decision to transfer the proceedings to military jurisdiction.” Lastly, in view of the State’s information regarding a proposal to amend article 57 of the Code of Military Justice, in compliance with the Judgment of the Court in the case of Radilla Pacheco, the representatives pointed out that “the information disseminated by the Presidency seems to imply that the amendment proposal [...] shall not comply with [the terms established in said Judgment]” and that, at any case, “the amendment […] has not been adopted.” 225. This Court has held in its case law that it is aware that domestic authorities are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are bound to apply the provisions in force within the legal system.332 But when a State has ratified an 331 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 25, para. 134, Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C N° 119, para. 92; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra note 100, para. 24 332 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 219; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 202.