305. In conclusion, based on the control of compatibility with the convention, and judicial and administrative interpretations, judicial guarantees must be applied in this case in accordance with the principles established in this Court’s jurisprudence.472 This is of particular relevance in light of the Court’s observations concerning the need to take into account any situation of vulnerability facing a person, especially in the case of minors or persons with disabilities, in order to guarantee them a differentiated treatment with regard to the duration of judicial proceedings and also in the context of the proceedings in which the payment of court-ordered compensation is established (supra para. 204, 217 and 222). B.3.3) Training for public officials and cooperation between State institutions 306. As other guarantees of non-repetition, the representatives requested: (i) the training of public officials on the rights of persons with disabilities; (ii) the organization of awareness-raising campaigns about the rights of persons with disabilities; (iii) the creation of a specific reinsurance to guarantee access to justice, and (iv) strengthening of intra- and inter-institutional coordination between the National Advisory Committee for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “CONADIS”), health care providers and other public programs, and the courts. Regarding the training courses and the awareness-raising campaign, the representatives requested “the establishment of judicial training courses to ensure that judges make a real commitment in relation to their powers to conduct the proceedings [… and] the training of government agents who may have some influence on the effective enjoyment of rights of persons with disabilities,” and also “the organization of awareness-raising and information campaigns on the rights granted by law to persons with disabilities and the procedures and measures required to access them.” They requested that “measures be adopted to ensure specific guarantees of access to justice for those in a vulnerable situation, regulating the obligations of the public bodies, especially of the courts, as agents of information, and the application of existing mechanisms for free legal assistance and protection.” They also asked that “the necessary measures be adopted to improve coordination between CONADIS, health care providers and other public programs and the Judiciary, in order to promote access to information and the exercise of the rights of persons with disabilities.” 307. The State pointed out that “the measure[s] […] sought by the representatives […] are already established under Argentine law.” It argued that it “regularly offers training through different public entities” and “facilitates and strengthens access to justice for persons [with disabilities], as well as promoting activities related to legal and social community programs.” It added that “currently, various information campaigns are under way in the media and on billboards on the rights of persons with disabilities” through organizations such as CONADIS and others. It considered that “CONADIS is responsible for providing counseling services to individuals (persons with disabilities or their family members), to government agencies and to non-governmental organizations on legal matters related to disability.” Considerations of the Court 308. The Court takes cognizance of the actions carried out by the State with regard to training for officials, information campaigns and inter-institutional cooperation to strengthen services for persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the violations that have been declared to the detriment of a person with disabilities in relation to the duration of judicial proceedings (supra para. 204) and the execution of the judgment (supra para. 219), 472 Cf. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 228 and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, para. 284. 96