a) adopt the measures necessary to guarantee Mr. Gorigoitía the right to appeal the conviction issued by the First Criminal Chamber of Mendoza on September 12, 1997, in accordance with the parameters set forth in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention (supra paras. 47 to 53). The state must comply with this measure within six months, counting from the notification of this judgment, and b) adopt the measures necessary to suspend the legal effects of the aforementioned conviction—especially those related to retirement benefits and criminal record—until a substantive decision is issued once the right to appeal has been guaranteed, as indicated in the previous paragraph. B.2 Measures of satisfaction 67. The representatives requested that the judicial ruling be disseminated broadly. Neither the state nor the Commission referred to this measure of reparation. 68. The Court deems it pertinent to order, as it has in other cases,95 that within six months of notification of this judgment, the state must make the following publications: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette, in a widelycirculated national newspaper, and in a newspaper widely circulated in the Province of Mendoza; and (b) this judgment in its entirety, available for at least one year, on the official websites of the Judiciary of the Province of Mendoza in a way that is accessible to the public. 69. The state must advise this Court immediately when it has issued each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year time frame for presentation of its first report, as established in the operative paragraphs of this judgment. B.3 Guarantees of non-repetition 70. The Commission asked the Court to order the legislative measures necessary to adapt the domestic legislation on cassation appeals to the standards enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. Likewise, it asked the Court to ensure that the judicial authorities conduct review of compliance with human rights conventions when resolving appeals of convictions in a manner consistent with the standards established in the Report on the Merits. The representatives asked that profound procedural reforms be ordered to both Mendoza and national legislation. Likewise, they requested the application of review of compliance with human rights conventions with regard to Provincial Law 6,730 amended by Law 9,040, and the Settlement of the Supreme Court of Mendoza on matters of extraordinary appeal, as well as the national regulations governing complaints. 71. The state maintained that the guarantees of non-repetition requested would amount to a judgment vitiated by arbitrariness, in which all its effects must be eliminated. It argued that this situation is unrelated to the case, since the dispute is not over the content of the judgment but establishing whether it has been properly reviewed. It therefore reiterated that the measures sought are not consistent with the case’s factual and legal records, and the measures must therefore be ordered by the competent domestic courts should the alleged judicial error be found. In particular, it argued that the alleged need to tackle procedural reforms as part of the obligation Cfr., inter alia, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79; Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 207; Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 197; Case of the Nova Brasília favela v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 300; Case of Lopez Soto et al v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 299, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 98. 95 21