C.2.3. Request for measures in memory of the victim 231. The representatives told the Court that “Mr. Carlos Luna López lost his life because of his struggle to protect the environment. […] It is important to keep his memory alive so that present and future generations will know about the message of Carlos Luna, the reasons for his death and learn to protect the environment. This will contribute to prevent such regrettable events from occurring in the future. With these objectives in mind, as in the Case of Kawas, [regarding the Punta Sal National Park, now the Blanca Janeth Kawas Fernández National Park,] the representatives of the victims ask[ed] the [Court] to order the State of Honduras to rename the current Patuca National Park, which is mainly located in Catacamas, with the name of Carlos Luna López, an action that should be publicized in at least one printed publication and on television channel with national coverage.” Furthermore, they indicated to the Court that “[t]o honor [the] memory [of Mr. Luna López], his struggles and those of his family to obtain justice, […] the State of Honduras be ordered to remodel the plaza located in front of the Catacamas Municipal building and construct a monument dedicated to Carlos Luna López. This measure should be carried out taking into account the criteria of Mr. Luna’s family.” 232. For their part, neither the Commission nor the State referred to this type of reparation measure. 233. Regarding the measures of reparation measures requested by the representatives, the Court considers that the provisions of paragraphs 227 and 230 of this Judgment are sufficient and appropriate to remedy, in part, the violations caused to the victims and fulfill the purpose indicated by the representatives. 330 Accordingly, the Court does not consider it appropriate to order such measures. C. 3. Guarantees of non-repetition 234. In cases such as this, guarantees of non-repetition take on a greater significance in ensuring that similar events are not repeated in future and to contribute to their prevention.331 In this sense, the Court recalls that the State must prevent the reoccurrence of the human rights violations described in this case and adopt all legal, administrative and other measures necessary to protect human rights defenders in the exercise of their human rights, in compliance with the obligations to respect and guarantee rights enshrined in Article 1(1) and 2 of the Convention.332 C.3.1. Request for the development of protocols for the due diligence in the investigations of human rights violations 235. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “[s]trengthen its institutional capacity to combat the pattern of impunity in cases involving threats and deaths of defenders, through the design of investigation protocols that take into account the risks inherent in the work of defending human rights, and in particular the right to a healthy 330 Cf. Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico, supra, para. 110 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 189. 331 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel el at. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C, No. 241, para. 92. Also, Cf. “The guarantees of non-repetition […] will also contribute to prevention.” UN, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparations for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, Resolution approved by the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/Res/60/147, December 16, 2005, principle 23. 332 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 166 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 195. 68