172. The Tribunal notes that Mrs. Millacura Llaipén has expressly rejected that the State be ordered to carry out specific measures of reparation (supra para. 170). Therefore, as the Court has proceeded in previous cases with respect to statements such as this, 173 and given that these are measures of satisfaction for the victims, the Tribunal will not order these types of measures as reparation. C.2. Training of police officials. 173. The Court has concluded in this Judgment that police abuses like the ones suffered by Mr. Torres Millacura are committed frequently in the Province of Chubut (supra para. 60 and 62). Thus, in order to guarantee the non-repetition of human rights violations, the Court finds it important to strengthen the institutional capacities of the police personnel of the Province of Chubut by training them on principles and rules of human rights protection, including the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty, as well as on the limits to which they are subjected when they detain a person. 174 For this, the State must, within a reasonable period of time, implement a permanent and obligatory program or course on human rights directed toward all levels of the Chubut provincial police hierarchy and addressing the above-indicated points. As part of this training, reference must be made to this Judgment, to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court with regard to enforced disappearance of persons, inhumane and degrading treatment, torture, and personal liberty, and to Argentina's international human rights obligations derived from the treaties to which it is Party. 175 C.3. Legislative measures. 174. The Commission requested that the Court order the State "to take all corresponding legislative measures in order for Law 815[,] the ‘Organic Policing Law’ of the Province of Chubut[,] to be adjusted to meet the standards enshrined in the American Convention." Likewise, it asked the Court to order “the legislative measures that may be needed to codify enforced disappearance of persons as an offense.” 175. The representatives asked the Court to “establish whether the crime of enforced disappearance is truly codified in Argentina and if, therefore, an individual can be processed and brought to trial in a timely fashion for [this] criminal offense.” 176. During the public hearing, the State indicated, as already noted in this Judgment (supra para. 150), that the offense of enforced disappearance of persons has already been codified as an offense in Argentina. 177. In this regard, the Tribunal positively assesses that the Argentine State has codified the offense of enforced disappearance of persons in the Criminal Code of the Nation through Law 26.679, passed on April 13, 2011, and promulgated on May 15, 173 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia, supra note 169, para. 213, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 286. Véase, además, el Case of Fernández Ortega et al. V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 247, and el Case of Fernández Ortega et al.. V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, Considering 6. 174 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 303; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. México, supra note 110, para. 249, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 51, para. 245. 175 Cf. Case of The Caracazo V. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs, supra note 170, para. 127; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 51, para. 245, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 278. 51