203. The Court orders, as it has in other cases,181 that the State publish, within six months of notification of this Judgment, in a legible and adequate font: a) the Court’s official summary of this Judgment, once, in the Official Gazette; b) the Court’s official summary of this Judgment, once, in a newspaper of widespread national circulation, c) the complete Judgment, available for one year, on an official Web site of the National Government. 204. The Court also considers it relevant, as it has in other cases, 182 that the State broadcast on a radio station of widespread coverage that reaches all points of the city of Maracaibo in the State of Zulia, the official summary of the Judgment, in the Spanish language and, with the prior consensus of the representatives, in the Wayuú language. The radio transmission should be made on four occasions, with a space of two weeks between them, after 8:00 a.m. and before 10:00 p.m. The State should comply with this measure within a period of six months of the notification of this Judgment. Venezuela must immediately inform the Court when it has made each of the transmissions ordered in the paragraph and the publications ordered in the above paragraph. E) Other measures requested 205. The Commission requested, in submitting the case to the Court, that Venezuela be ordered “to make available the mechanisms of non-repetition that include:” i) ii) The necessary measures in order that the figure of preventive detention, in practice, be the exception and not the rule and that the standards contained in the [Merits Report] be consistently applied and The necessary measures so that there are appropriate and effective remedies to obtain reparation for the violations of human rights arising from the improper use of preventive detention. 206. The representatives believe that the State should: i) “proceed to drafting and adopting the necessary domestic norms to adapt State laws to the Convention” and “to the standards of the inter-American system on […] preventive detention, reasonable time, conditions of detention” and ii) “train its officials and agents to know and respect human rights and […] the standards of incarceration, especially the police, the prison staff and the administrative personnel of the National Guard.” In addition, they requested that there be “a public act of apology to the victims for the violations suffered.” 207. The Court notes, in the first place, that Article 182 of the CCP applied in this case, which the Court considered to be in violation of the American Convention (supra paras. 121, 123 and 133), was not in force at the time of the delivery of this Judgment. 183 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, para. 79 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 117. 181 182 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 227 and Case of the Indigenous Community of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina, para. 349. In deciding a prior case, the Court stated that “the domestic rules that […] are based solely on the existence of “indications of criminal responsibility” to order the arrest, which were declared to be incompatible with Article 2 of the Convention […] have been modified as of the year 1999” and, for that reason” it was considered inappropriate to order measures of adaptation of the domestic law. Those domestic norms refer to Article 182 of the CCP (Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, paras. 112 to 116 and 135). In addition, the criminal procedural legislation, as well as the constitutional, has been modified, as noted by the expert Magaly Mercedes Vásquez González (supra para. 59). That modification has also been referred to by the expert Nelson Orlando Mejía Durán, who stated that “the change in the procedural system in Venezuela initiated a total transformation of the justice system” (cf. Written expert opinion of Nelson Orlando Mejía Durán). The Court 183 50