the obligation to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention.287 266. In this case, the Court considered that it was not appropriate to analyze the facts under Articles 9 and 2 of the American Convention. Neither the parties nor the Commission provided the Court with information on the current existence or application of the normative questioned in Bolivia. In addition, in its report, the Commission mentioned the issue, on September 1, 2005, of Supreme Decree No. 28329 288 and, furthermore, the State referred to the promulgation of Law 251 on June 20, 2012, and the existence of bill 0208/2012-2013, which would regulate the immigration system in Bolivia. Since no evidence or arguments were presented as to whether the current legal regime for migrants or refugees in Bolivia is not in conformity with the relevant international standards, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to order the measures requested by the representatives. This does not mean that the Court is ruling either positively or negatively on the compatibility with the Convention of the legislation enacted following the facts. b) Training for public officials Arguments of the parties 267. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to implement an education and training program for the personnel of the National Immigration Service, as well as for other officials who, owing to their functions, come into contact with migrants. In particular, they indicated that this training should relate to the international standards concerning the human rights of migrants, the guarantees of due process of law, and the right to consular assistance. They added that the education and training program should also include standards relating to the rights of child migrants, whether or not they are accompanied. 268. Regarding the training measures, the State announced a series of measures taken in this regard by both the General Immigration Directorate289 and by CONARE.290 Considerations of the Court 287 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Preliminary objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 50, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, para. 187 288 The considering clauses of this decree indicates that its purpose was to implement a “coordinated action” of the State, using a “permanent mechanism to assess and consider these cases.” In addition, it was indicated that this permanent mechanism to assess and consider cases of requests for recognition of refugee status must be authorized to determine the admissibility of accepting and/or denying the requests and their consequences, in keeping with the provisions of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Indeed, article 1 of this decree indicates: “The purpose of this Supreme Decree is to establish the Bolivian National Refugee Commission, as a permanent mechanism to assess and consider cases of requests for asylum. In addition, it establishes the regulation and proceedings to be following by the Bolivian National Refugee Commission under the legal and international provisions in force.” Cf. Supreme Decree 28329 of September 1, 2005. Bolivian National Refugee Commission. Regulations and proceedings. 289 In particular, the State indicated that the following measures had been taken: (a) training for Inspectors at borders and airports, and police agents of the Police Unit providing Support to Immigration Control (UPACOM) on the issue of the Immigration Regime, People-trafficking and People-smuggling, Police Procedures concerning Immigration, Airport Security, and Passport and Documentation Security Measures, organized in Cochabamba, Potosí, Oruro, Tarija and Chuquisaca with experts on these issues, and (b) creation of the National Training Strategy on human rights, immigration procedures, and refugees. 290 In particular, the State indicated that it had taken the following steps: (a) signature of the Framework Agreement on Reciprocal Cooperation on May 4, 2007, with the regional representative of UNHCR; (b) the 2008 agreement with UNHCR on the Reception and right of use of UNHCR property in favor of CONARE; (c) the 2008 agreement between UNHCR, the Pastoral de Movilidad Humana, and CONARE on an internship system to reinforce the CONARE Secretariat, and (d) the organization of several workshops on the rights of migrants and the granting of refugee status. In addition, it cited other measures of non-repetition taken by the General Immigration Directorate and CONARE. 79