educational training ordered in the preceding paragraph in the places where they are detained. In the case of Lucas Matías Mendoza, the State must consider his special needs due to his loss of vision and ensure that his place of detention has suitable facilities for him to carry out his studies, if he so wishes. Furthermore, the Court considers that the educational grant described in the preceding paragraph must also be provided to Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and to Lucas Matías Mendoza in the event that they are released and continue their studies outside the prison. B.2. Satisfaction B.2.1. Publication and dissemination of the pertinent parts of the judgment B.2.1.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 319. The representative requested the publication of the pertinent parts of the Judgment in three national newspapers and in three newspapers with widespread circulation in the province of Mendoza, as well as its complete publication on the websites of the Ministry of Justice of the Nation and the Ministry of Justice of the province of Mendoza for one year. She also requested widespread dissemination of the Judgment among police and prison authorities, and in detention centers for juveniles and for adults. The Commission and the State did not present arguments or observations in this regard. B.2.1.2. Considerations of the Court 320. The Court decides, as it has ordered in other cases, 392 that the State must publish once, within six months of notification of this Judgment, the official summary of the Judgment prepared by the Court in the official gazette and in a national newspaper with widespread circulation. The State must ensure that this newspaper also circulates widely in the province of Mendoza. In addition, Argentina must publish the complete judgment on an official website of the Judiciary of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and of the province of Mendoza, and of the prisons and juvenile institutions in both locations. B.3. Guarantees of non-repetition B.3.1. Juvenile Criminal Regime B.3.1.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 321. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt the necessary legislative and any other type of measures to make the criminal justice system applicable to adolescents for acts committed while under 18 years of age compatible with the international obligations concerning the special protection of children and the purpose of punishment. The representative indicated that the parameters of this reform should be: (a) to establish a system of special sanctions for juveniles; (b) to establish alternatives to criminal sanctions; (c) to reinforce the specific procedural guarantees for persons under 18 years of age, and (d) to establish appropriate public policies. 322. The State indicated that these measures are guaranteed, because, following the facts of the instant case, in the Maldonado judgment, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation established as legal doctrine that unlimited sentences were inapplicable to minors. 392 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 303, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 79. 101