administrative, financial, budgetary, training or sensibilizing measures or any other that are necessary for the judiciary to have the capacity to try, effectively and promptly, the cases of serious violations of human right committed during the dictatorship. The adoption of these measures will not be monitored by the Court. 264. The Court does not consider it appropriate to order measures relative to the training of justice operators, as was requested by the Commission and the representative (supra paras. 238, 239, 259 and 260). It recalls that, in its judgment in the Gelman case, it had ordered the implementation of “a permanent program of human rights for officials of the Public Ministry and the judges of the Judicial Branch of Uruguay.” The State has partially complied with this measure 289 and the Court will continue to monitor compliance of the Gelman case so that it is not necessary to repeat this measure or a similar one. 265. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that the Court also does not deem it appropriate to order measures on the training of justice operators on the incorporation of a focus of gender, as was requested by the Commission and the representative (supra paras. 238, 239, 259 and 260) since there is no evidence that the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection declared in this case, which are related to the issue of the adoption of a perspective of gender in its activities, are due to structural deficiencies in the training of those operators. In addition, the Court notes that the State informed that it has adopted a series of laws and policies on the matter (supra para. 245). 266. The Court notes that, with respect to the request on the access to archives, in the Gelman case it ordered the State to “adopt, within two years and with the necessary budget, the relevant measures to guarantee technical and systematized access to information on the serious violations of human rights that occurred during the dictators.” The Court has since “observed that Uruguay has implemented various initiatives directed to gather, systematize and digitize information on events committed during the dictatorship that were in various State facilities” and has understood that the State “has been complying with [that] measure of reparation.” It also noted that “Uruguay must continue to implement this measure as thoroughly as possible.”290 The Court will continue to monitor the implementation of this measure in the context of the corresponding proceedings in the Gelman case. 267. Therefore, the Court considers that it is not necessary to again order Uruguay to adopt measures on the access to information or to the archives related to serious human rights violations.291 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance of judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 19, 2020, operative paragraph 1. 289 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance of judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 19, 2020, considering paragraphs 52 and 55. 290 The Court takes note that the State informed on the delivery, by the Executive Branch, the Court Prosecutor, and the National Institute of Human Rights, of the military reports during the dictatorship (supra footnote 12). This Court also notes that, according to a June 7, 2021 newspaper item provided by the representative, these reports were not of much use for the Office of the Prosecutor or for the National Institute of Human Rights (evidence file, fs. 7467 to 7470). In any case, this information provided by the parties does not alter the contents of the prior paragraph on the continuity of monitoring the measure ordered in the Gelman case, nor the determination, for the reasons given, to not order a new measure of reparation related to access to information or to archives. 291 69