the State, whether under that name or any other of equivalent significance, from any records in the State’s possession in which he was referred to as such. The State must inform the Court immediately when it has complied with the measures ordered. The one-year deadline for the State to submit its first report established in operative paragraph 14 of this judgment does not apply to this measure of satisfaction. F) Other measures requested 228. The Commission asked the Court to order non-repetition mechanisms, including: a) the revoking of certain military regulations and manuals; b) an explicit instruction from the military and police high commands to all ranks to not use the military regulations and manuals in question due to their incompatibility with the American Convention; and c) steps to ensure the discontinuation of the practices created through the use of the regulations and manuals and the concept of “the enemy within,” incorporating this case into human rights training provided to police, military and intelligence personnel. 229. The representatives asked that the State be ordered to expressly revoke all manuals that contain references to the concept of “the enemy within,” and to publish them on the homepage of the Ministry of Defense’s website, where they are visible and easy to access. They also requested that on the day they are published, the State promote and invite citizens to visit the website, through the social media accounts of the President, the National Agency for Legal Defense of the State, and the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry for International Affairs. 230. They also asked that the State be ordered to make the necessary improvements to the two properties around which the family’s life revolves: the home of Candelaria Nuris Vergara Carriazo and Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio in the city of Bogotá, and the home of Mr. Movilla’s mother in Montería. Furthermore, bearing in mind the way in which Candelaria Vergara has been affected on account of her gender, they asked that the State be ordered to give her a piece of land and the resources required to mount an agricultural production project, reflecting Candelaria’s wishes and life ambitions. 231. The State, in response to the request to revoke the military manuals, informed the Court that this had already been done. It also recalled that according to Law 57 of 1985 the State reserves the right to not publicize official acts and documents related to defense and national security, arguing that to do so would put at risk the integrity of the personnel who carry out military operations and the civilian population. Therefore, it asked the Court to reject the request that the manuals be published. 232. With respect to the measure regarding improvements to the properties where Pedro Movilla and his family lived, the State did not believe there was a strong connection between that measure of reparation and the victimizing act, and therefore rejected the pertinence or necessity of ordering it. But it did say it was willing to come to an agreement on the measure with the alleged victims, working with the entities concerned. 233. The Court notes that the State has not produced the military manuals in question for these proceedings, and has stated that they are no longer used, but no evidence has been presented to prove that. Therefore, this Court finds that it is appropriate to reiterate its observations in the case of Isaza Uribe v. Colombia: It is not clear whether current military doctrine still contains notions or concepts whose application or interpretation could place certain individuals, groups or communities among the civilian population at risk or in vulnerable situations in the context of the armed conflict. This raises the question of the limits of, or exceptions to, the principles 59