of crimes and human rights violations. It pointed out that the temporary scope of application of the Law for the reparation of victims responds to a transitional justice process. Regardless, any person who alleges that their rights have been violated can initiate a domestic judicial process "to assert their rights," meaning that any measure having to do with a modification of domestic law to that effect is not applicable. 208. It said that both the National Police and the Armed Forces have implemented continuous training processes in the area of human rights, making measures in this area unnecessary. It added that the only identified victims are those included in the Merits Report, so the requests for reparations for other people, such as the daughters of Andrés Alejandro Casierra Quiñonez, should be dismissed. 209. On this matter, the Court finds that the above measures, which were requested by the Commission and the representatives, are not appropriate, for the reasons set out below. 210. As to the specific regulations that limit the application of military criminal justice, the Court recalls that, based on the regulatory reform implemented, such a measure has been fulfilled, which allegedly affected the instant case, while the Office of the Prosecutor General apparently resumed the investigation to clarify what happened (supra para 155). This means that additional measures are not necessary relating to the investigative capacities in the field of the use of lethal force by state agents, or the corresponding agencies, since what is analyzed in this Judgment neither denotes nor allows questioning of the capacity of the Office of the Prosecutor General to exercise such functions. 211. As to training of the members of the National Navy on international standards on the use of force, despite the Court's recognition of the causal link of the measure with the facts of the case and the declared violations, the Court takes note of the efforts made by Ecuador in this matter, as it has been reported that the members of the Naval Forces, as well as members of other components of the Armed Forces, have been specifically trained in this matter, as part of their regular training curriculum. The foregoing is included in the framework of the training programs developed as part of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law System implemented by the respective authorities of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces.168 Consequently, the Court finds no need for additional measures in this regard. 212. Turning to the request to hold a public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility in relation to the facts of the case, the Court warns that this, too, is inadmissible, given that what happened to the victims is documented in the Truth Commission's final report, with the magnitude that said incorporation entails (supra paras. 89, 90, and 91). 213. As to the implementation of regulations, institutions, or economic mechanisms aimed at reparations or advising for victims of crimes and human rights violations, the Court notes the efforts implemented by the State in this area, which is evident in the content of the Law for the reparation of victims of 2013. Although said regulations are subject to the cases documented by the Truth Commission, the Court recalls that the facts analyzed in this Judgment respond, precisely, to a case included in the final report of the aforementioned Truth Commission. 214. Lastly, as the State pointed out, the only victims considered to be beneficiaries of reparations are those identified as the injured party (supra para 171), making it inadmissible to order measures for other people. Cf. Report on training in Human Rights for Armed Forces personnel, signed by the Director of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces on February 4, 2020 (evidence file, volume X, annex 72 of the answering brief, folios 5234 to 5245). 168 46