312. Based on the above, the Court assesses positively the progressive efforts made by the State. However, since, in this case, it has established the State’s responsibility for the violation of Article 2 of the Convention owing to the lack of adequate legislation and training on the use of force at the time of the facts, and considering the measures ordered in its previous judgments in this regard, the Court reiterates the need to comply with the aspects ordered in its judgments that are pending compliance. In particular, it considers it important that the State enhance its capability to monitor and to require accountability from police agents involved in episodes when force is used, in accordance with the international standards reflected in this Judgment. C.3.2 Other measures requested C.3.2.1 Adaptation of the laws on the detention of minors 313. The representatives indicated that Eduardo Landaeta had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty and subsequently processed under an ordinary procedure in which his status as a minor was not considered, even though his family members pointed this out to the State agents in charge of him. In this regard, the representatives asked that the State adapt its laws to international standards for cases of the detention of minors, to ensure that events such as those of this case are not repeated. Neither the Commission nor the State referred to this measure of reparation. 314. The Court takes note of the relevant laws in force in Venezuela on juvenile detention. First, article 526 of the Organic Law for the Protection of Children and Adolescents, promulgated in 2007, created a system for Adolescent Criminal Responsibility 403 composed of different State bodies and entities. 404 Its purpose was to establish a regime of responsibility that was differentiated from the ordinary regime based on the specialized jurisdiction and on the sanctions imposed on adolescents. 405 In addition, article 548 of this law established that the deprivation of liberty of an adolescent was an exceptional measure and was only admissible if a court order exists. 406 If the detention was executed in flagrante delicto, the law established a time limit of 24 hours for the authorities concerned to bring the adolescent before a judge. 407 If the detention was executed in order to identify the minor, it could not exceed 96 hours 403 Article 2 of the Organic Law for the Protection of Children and Adolescents defines the adolescent as anyone who is 12 years old or more and less than 18 years of age. 404 Article 526 establishes that: “The Adolescent Criminal Responsibility System is the series of bodies and entities that are responsible for establishing the responsibility of the adolescent for the wrongful acts he commits, as well as for the application and control of the corresponding sanctions.” In addition, article 527 establishes that: “The Adolescent Criminal Responsibility System is composed of: (a) the Adolescents Section of the Criminal Court’(b) the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice; (c) the Public Prosecution Service; (d) the Autonomous Public Defense Service; (e) the Investigating Police, and (f) programs and entities that provide attention to adolescents.” 405 Article 528 establishes that: “The adolescent who commits a wrongful act shall respond for the act to the extent that he is guilty, in a way that is differentiated from that of the adult. The difference consists in the specialized jurisdiction and in the sanction imposed.” 406 Article 548 establishes the exceptional nature of the deprivation of liberty and indicates that: “With the exception of detention in flagrante delicto, the deprivation of liberty is only admissible with a court order in the cases, under the conditions, and for the period established in this law. Preventive detention may be reviewed at any time at the request of the adolescent.” 407 Article 557 refers to detention in flagrante delicto, and indicates that: “The adolescent who has been detained in flagrante delicto shall be brought immediately before the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service who, within the following 24 hours, shall bring him before the Oversight Judge and shall explain how the arrest was made. The judge shall decide, during the same hearing, if he orders an oral trial directly within the following 10 days. The prosecutor and, if appropriate, the complainant, shall present the charges directly in the hearing of the oral trial and, in other matters, the ordinary rules of procedure shall be followed. During the hearing to present the individual detained in flagrante delicto, the judge shall decide the precautionary measure to ensure appearance at trial, and may order pre-trial detention only in the cases that are admissible pursuant to the following articles.” 87