269. The Court recalls that the State must prevent the recurrence of human rights violations such as those that occurred and, to this end, adopt any legal, administrative or other measures required to avoid a repetition of similar events in the future, in compliance with its obligations to prevent violations, and to guarantee the fundamental rights recognized by the American Convention.291 270. In this case, although the State mentioned a series of measures aimed at training the public officials of the General Immigration Directorate and of CONARE, the information provided does not reveal that these measures refer specifically to permanent education and training programs and courses on human rights and the rights of migrants and refugees (including the principle of non-refoulement). Consequently, the Court orders the State to implement permanent training programs for officials of the National Immigration Directorate and CONARE, as well as for other officials who, owing to their functions come into contact with migrants or persons requesting asylum,292 which must refer to the international standards on the human rights of migrants, the guarantees of due process of law, and international refugee law. These training programs and courses should make special mention of this Judgment and the different precedents of the human rights corpus iuris on the issues described above. D. Compensation Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 271. The Commission indicated that the State should provide integral reparation for the members of the Pacheco Tineo family, which should include compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm suffered. In this regard, it stressed that the presence of the family in another country should not be considered an obstacle for compliance with this recommendation, because it was for the Bolivian State to make the necessary diplomatic and consular efforts to comply with the reparation. 272. For its part, the State asked the Court, in general, to respect the prohibition of double reparation, taking into account that many of the adverse effects indicated by the presumed victims are the result of facts that occurred in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. It also asked the Court to take into account the special circumstances of the country and the numerous efforts that it had gradually been making in the context of the protection of human rights. Lastly, it asked the Court to take into consideration that the State of Bolivia had tried to approach the presumed victims in order to evaluate eventual compliance with the recommendations made by the Commission in its Merits Report. D.1. Pecuniary damage a) Loss of earnings 273. The representatives argued that, because they had been deprived of their professional diplomas by the Bolivian immigration authorities, the Pacheco Tineo couple were prevented from exercising their profession as psychologists. They added that the long process of regularization following the recovery of their diplomas as psychologists was made more difficult owing to the stigma that they had been expelled from Bolivia as “terrorists,” which placed enormous and serious limitations on the exercise of their profession. 293 In particular, they indicated that, to 291 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 166, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 221. 292 Similarly, see Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 271. 293 They also argued that the Pacheco Tineo couple’s impossibility of working and generating professional earnings began with the expulsion and handing over of these persons to the Peruvian authorities, which resulted in their immediate imprisonment, which lasted for six months until a judgment acquitting them was delivered. 80