- 127 - the design of the special medical/psychological protocol for the investigation and documentation of torture based on the guiding principles of the Istanbul Protocol, the creation of the Special Unit to Investigate the Crime of Torture, and the signature of a technical cooperation agreement with the OHCHR to reinforce the prevention and detection of torture; (iii) the creation of the center requested by the representatives was not justified because instances, mechanisms, protocols, procedures and functions already existed that were performed by diverse entities of the Mexican State, and (iv) the measures already implemented were sufficient so that “the victims’ request for the creation of a space of remembrance should be declined.” 363. The Court has verified that the State has enacted the General Law to Prevent, Investigate and Punish Crimes of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on June 26, 2017, and its article 24 establishes that torture may be committed “for any […] purpose.” The Court also notes that this law has not been applied to the facts that are the purpose of this judgment. Therefore, the Court finds that it does not have to establish a measure of reparation related to this law, because it was not examined in this case. 364. Regarding the first measure requested by the representatives, the Court recognizes the progress made by the State as regards forensic medical care for victims of sexual torture, and thus does not find it pertinent to order that measure. However, the Court notes that the consistent refusal of the forensic physicians to identify signs of torture and sexual violence, as well as their lack of independence, together with their failure to file reports, contributes to impunity.465 Therefore, the Court urges the State to ensure the independence of the medical and health care personnel in charge of examining and providing assistance to detainees so that they may perform the required medical assessments freely, respecting the standards established for the practice of their profession.466 365. Regarding the other measures requested, the Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims. Therefore, it does not find it necessary to order the said additional measures, without prejudice to the State deciding to adopt them and grant them at the domestic level. F. Compensation 366. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to establish comprehensive reparation for the victims, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects. 367. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay financial compensation to the victims for pecuniary damage, covering both “loss of earnings” and consequential damage, as members of the police, and to serve as a guideline at the different stages of the criminal proceedings (the traditional and the accusatory), to ensure an exhaustive investigation of the facts, to take into account the special vulnerability of the passive subject and non-revictimization, as well as for the design of the special medical/psychological protocol for the investigation and documentation of torture based on the guiding principles of the Istanbul Protocol.” Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 92; Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 264, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 99. 465 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 92, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 99. 466