108. The Court orders, as it has done in other cases,128 that the State publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in the Official Gazette in a legible and adequate font; (b) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in a newspaper of broad national circulation in a legible and adequate font and (c) the complete judgment, available for at least one year, on the official Web sites of the Ministry of Women, Genders and Diversity (hereinafter “MMGyD”) and of the Ministry of Health, accessible to the public and starting on the first page of the Web sites. 109. In addition, within six months of the notification of this judgment, the State must make public the Court’s judgment on the social media of the MMGyD and the Ministry of Health. The publication shall indicate that the Inter-American Court has delivered a judgment in this case and has declared the international responsibility of Argentina and shall indicate the link to directly access the complete text of the judgment. This publication shall be issued at least five times by each institution, during working hours, and shall remain published on their social media profiles. The State shall immediately inform the Court once it has issued each of the ordered publications, notwithstanding the period of one year to present its first report, ordered in Operative Paragraph 10 of this judgment. D. Guarantee of non-repetition 110. The Commission requested that the necessary measures of training be ordered so that the health staff in both public and private hospitals who attend women who are pregnant or are in labor are informed of the standards found in the Merits Report. In its final written arguments, the Commission stated that it welcomed the actions taken by the State in the area of guarantee of non-repetition to the extent that it demonstrates its commitment in the areas of obstetric services and care during pregnancy and childbirth. Nonetheless, the Commission indicated that the information provided does not give details as to whether the training referred to by the State specifically deals with those standards. It observed that the list that the State provided to the Court cites six workshops or training days held between May 2018 and June 2019, which means that there was no information on the training sessions during the past three years nor on the content of the training nor whether it was permanent, its frequency and the indices of impact, among others. Therefore, the available information does not allow an assessment that would enable determining whether the State has adopted sufficient measures that would make it unnecessary to order the requested measure of non-repetition. In addition, the Commission welcomed that the Office of Perinatal and Child Health has indicated in its report that “it will consider for future training the information contained in the Report on the Merits.” Therefore, it argued that ordering a measure of reparation similar to the one requested and the respective monitoring by the Court would contribute to the efforts and actions already undertaken by the authorities in the area of the strengthening and the training of the health staff involved in pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum care. 111. The representative did not specifically refer to this matter. 112. The State argued that the Court should not order the measures of non-repetition requested by the Commission. It indicated that the existing public policies, directed to ensure the rights of pregnant women, reveal that the current conditions in Argentina are very different than those that existed at the moment of the facts. Thus, it informed on the directive of special protection for the mother and child that is taken from inter-American law and from the Constitution (Article 75(23)), which is manifested in the adoption of laws and public policies directed to broadening 128 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001, para. 79 and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 107. 30