b. Campaign on the rights of migrants 271. The Commission requested the adoption of the necessary measures to prevent these events from occurring in the future. Similarly, the representatives asked, within the guarantees of non-repetition, that the Court order training on the principle of nondiscrimination. For its part, the State indicated during the public hearing that it has not been demonstrated and there is no evidence to confirm any discriminatory treatment to the detriment of the presumed victims or against the Dominican nationals. 272. Since it has been proved that the State was responsible for a pattern of discrimination against migrants in Dominican Republic, the Court finds it relevant that the State organize a media campaign on the rights of regular and irregular migrants on Dominican territory in the terms of this Judgment. To this end, the State must submit an annual report for three consecutive years, indicating the measures it has taken to this end. c. Adoption of domestic legal measures i. Use of Force 273. As proved in paragraph 85 of this Judgment, the Court declared that the Dominican State failed to comply with its obligation to protect the rights to life and to personal integrity by adequate legislation on the use of force, in violation of the right to guarantee the rights to life and to personal integrity and of Article 2 of the Convention. 274. The Court recalls that the State must prevent the recurrence of human rights violations such as those that occurred in this case and, to this end, adopt all necessary legal, administrative and any other measures to avoid a repetition of similar events in the future, in compliance with its obligation to protect and ensure the fundamental rights established in the American Convention. In particular, in keeping with Article 2 of the Convention, the State must adopt the measures necessary to make the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention effective.327 275. In particular, the State must, within a reasonable time, adapt its domestic law to the American Convention, incorporating the international standards on the use of force by law enforcement agents,328 in accordance with the principles of legality, proportionality, necessity and exceptionality, as well as the criteria for the progressive and differentiated use of force. This legislation must include the specifications indicated in Chapter VII-1 of this Judgment. ii. The military jurisdiction 276. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt the necessary legislative or other type of measures to bring article 3 of the Military Criminal Code into compliance with the American Convention and the Court’s case law. 277. In this regard, the representatives requested the following measures: (a) the repeal of domestic laws concerning the attribution of jurisdiction to military courts for cases involving allegations of human rights violations committed by members of the armed forces; (b) the adoption of new laws that clearly grant jurisdiction to civil courts in such situations, 327 Cf. Case of Velázquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 166, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 240. 328 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 144. 71