172. The representatives requested that the State publish: (a) the judgment in its entirety in the Official Gazette; (b) the official summary in a newspaper with national circulation and, (c) the full text of the judgment for a period of one year, on an official website, accessible to the public. The Commission and the State did not refer specifically to this measure. C.2. Considerations of the Court 173. The Court orders, as it has done in other cases, 236 that the State publish, within a period of six months of notification of this judgment, in a legible and adequate font size, the following: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper with national circulation, and (b) this Judgment in its entirety, available for a period of one year, on the official website of the Judiciary in a manner that is accessible to the public and from the website’s home page. The State must inform the Court immediately once it has made each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year timeframe to present its first report, established in operative paragraph 9 of this judgment. D. Guarantees of non-repetition D.1. Requests of the Commission and the parties 174. The Commission requested that the State adapt the domestic criminal law, in accordance with the State's obligations in terms of freedom of expression, "recourse to subsequent civil liability" for cases of expression of public interest, or concerning the actions of public officials, observing the principle of proportionality and actual malice. It also requested that the regime of civil sanctions in matters of freedom of expression be adapted, in accordance with the obligations of the State under the American Convention, which implies establishing that the communicator disseminating the information had the intention of inflicting harm, or was proceeded with gross negligence in the search for the truth or falsehood of the news, respecting the principles of necessity and proportionality in the establishment of compensation, if applicable. The Commission stated that the legislative change that occurred in Ecuador in 2014 did not unequivocally eliminate the possibility of penalizing criticism directed at public authorities, by maintaining the crime of slander and "class four offenses." 175. The representatives requested, as a guarantee of non-repetition, that the State be ordered to adopt the necessary measures to eliminate from the legal system all those norms that allow punishing critical or disrespectful statements against public officials in the exercise of their duties. In particular, they requested the adaption of articles 182 and 396 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, they requested that the State be required to adopt legislative or other measures necessary to ensure that the establishment of civil compensation for damages cannot be used as a mechanism to impose punitive sanctions of any kind or disproportionate compensation for the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. In addition, they requested that judicial officials be trained on the standards of freedom of expression in public affairs. 176. The State stated that the Criminal Code applied to the victims was in force until October 10, 2014, the date of publication of the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, par. 79, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, par. 273. 236 56