Arguments of the parties 261. The representatives asked the Court to order the Bolivian State to publish the entire text of the judgment in the Bolivian Official Gazette. They asked that this publication be “preceded, to provide reparation to the victims, by an acknowledgement of responsibility and entitled a public apology.” For its part, the State argued that, “if the Court decides that the State has any responsibility and orders the publication of the eventual judgment, the State, in the context of its international commitments in the area of human rights, will publish it in the Bolivian Official Gazette, as determined by the Court.” Considerations of the Court 262. The Court finds it pertinent to order, as it has in other cases, 284 that the State publish, within six months of notification of this Judgment: (a) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the official gazette; (b) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and (c) the entire Judgment on an official website, available for one year. C.4. Guarantees of non-repetition a) Legislative reform Arguments of the parties 263. The representatives indicated that it was necessary for the State to amend its laws to include, at least: (a) regulation of immigration procedures based on a formal law, emphasizing that the regulation of restrictions to the rights of migrants must be compatible with international treaties, particularly the American Convention on Human Rights; (b) regulation of special proceedings for cases involving migrant children, and (c) regulation of judicial remedies against decisions adopted by the immigration authorities. 264. On this point, the State of Bolivia indicated that, on June 20, 2012, it had promulgated Law 251, establishing a protection regime for refugees and those applying for this status, in conformity with the State’s Constitution, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and other international instruments ratified by Bolivia.285 Considerations of the Court 265. The Court recalls that the State must prevent the repetition of human rights violations such as those that occurred and, to this end, adopt any necessary legal, administrative or other type of measures to avoid similar events happening again, in compliance with its obligation to prevent violations of, and to guarantee, the fundamental rights recognized by the American Convention.286 In particular, and in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the State has 284 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, para. 230. 285 It added that, in this context, it can be observed that the Bolivian State, acting to promote the rights of refugees and migrants, has established normative provisions with extensive guarantees for the rights of those in this situation. 286 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 166, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 221 78