of the Army must promote the website where the judgment and its summary are located by means of a weekly post for one year. 384. The State must advise this Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragaph 383, irrespective of the oneyear time frame for presenting its first report required in the tenth operative paragraph of this judgment. In addition, in the report required in the thirteenth operative paragraph, the State must present evidence of all the weekly posts on social networks ordered in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 383 of this judgment. E. Other measures of reparation requested by the representatives 385. The representatives asked the Court to require the State: (i) to reinforce the measures of protection for individuals in the custody of the State; to ensure the effective implementation of the National Mechanism for Prevention of Torture, and to ensure the transparency and independence of the National Committee to Prevent and Combat Torture; (ii) to ensure the autonomy of forensic experts and to prepare a national protocol of due diligence to combat torture; (iii) to grant land in São Paulo to build a museum; (iv) to strengthen the Program for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders so that it becomes an effective public policy to protect human rights defenders and also communicators; (v) to ensure that all State institutions and authorities are obliged to cooperate by supplying information and full access to all the files and records that may contain information on crimes, the individuals involved and the victims, and that it open investigative and administrative proceedings that lead to the recovery of documentation that is missing or has been destroyed, and determine the guilty parties. 386. The State argued that: (i) crimes of torture were not the purpose of this case, and described the legal framework, and current public policies and actions to prevent and combat torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Brazil; (ii) the request was not legally admissible because the Federal Government could not oblige the federated states to amend their laws. It also asserted that initiatives had already been implemented to create of an autonomous career in the federated states; (iii) it had implemented memory and truth policies; (iv) the Program for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders had its own methodology and criteria and also included cases of communicators; it also asserted that the request to strengthen the Program was very general and would not permit compliance, because the Program was very effective now, and (v) the allegations relating to denial of access to and reconstruction of documents were very general. 387. In this regard, the Court considers that the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture has already been implemented and appreciates the initiatives taken by Brazil to preserve the right of Vladimir Herzog to be remembered. Consequently, it finds that it is not appropriate to issue additional measures of reparation in this regard. Also, the autonomy of forensic experts and the preparation or implementation of a national protocol of due diligence to combat torture has not been part of the subject matter of this case; thus, the Court considers this request inadmissible. Regarding the other measures of reparation requested, the Court considers that they were not the subject of this case and, accordingly, finds those requests inadmissible. F. Compensation i) Pecuniary damage 97