- 124 - as a result of the facts. Consequently, the Court considers it appropriate to require the State to grant a scholarship in a Mexican public higher education establishment to Angélica Patricia Torres Linares, Claudia Hernández Martínez and Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, as mutually agreed between them and the State, to continue their higher technical or university education, at either the graduate and/or postgraduate level, or to undertake professional training.459 This scholarship must be granted as soon as the beneficiaries request the State to provide it and until the conclusion of their higher technical or university studies, including study materials. In principle, this measure should begin as soon as possible following notification of the judgment, so that the beneficiaries may commence their studies during the next academic year if they so desire. Nevertheless, in light of the particular severity of the psychological and emotional effects of torture and sexual violence that still persist in the victims, the Court finds it prudent to emphasize that the beneficiaries may advise the State of their intention to receive the scholarships when they consider that they are in conditions to resume their academic studies, within two years from notification of this judgment. D.3 Guarantees of non-repetition D.3.a Raising police awareness of gender issues, and creation of a mechanism to measure the effectiveness of institutions and policies established by the State to regulate and monitor the use of force 352. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “to adopt measures of non-repetition aimed at educating both state and federal law enforcement agencies with regard to the absolute prohibition of torture and sexual or any other kind of violence against women, and sending a clear message repudiating this type of act.” 353. The representatives asked the Court to require the State to adapt its laws to avoid the arbitrary use of force in contexts of social protest, establishing a mechanism to exercise control of the use of force before, during and after police actions. They also asked that the State be required to adapt its domestic laws to avoid the use of force in contexts of social protest, by the creation of a body specialized in the institutional development and monitoring of the police forces. 354. The State indicated that, currently, it has legislative instruments adapting its legal framework concerning the use of force, and therefore argued that it “had already made the pertinent amendments to adapt its legal framework on torture and use of force.” Likewise, it argued that it “already has mechanisms and institutions that guarantee an external scrutiny of the Mexican police and that ensure the rights of the population from different perspectives, such as human rights, criminal law, administrative responsibility, and the right to the truth and information. Thus, the measure requested by the representatives is not viable.” 355. As verified by the Court in Chapter IX-1 of this judgment, the unlawful and excessive use of force by the State in the context of the events that took place on May 3 and 4, 2006, in Texcoco and San Salvador de Atenco resulted in violations of different rights recognized in the Convention. The Court appreciates the efforts made by the State, at both the state and the federal level, to establish limits to the use of force in contexts of social protest and to monitor the police forces. Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 80, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 310. 459