158. The representative asked that the decision of the Inter-American Commission and the judgment of the Court be published in the Official Record, in the Orden General of the National Police and in the national newspapers. The Commission also submitted requests in this regard. 159. The State noted that the proceedings in the domestic jurisdiction had been decided and the respective judgment was public. It added that, if the judgment delivered by the Court found the State guilty, the measure requested should merely be the public availability of the judgment on the website of the National Police. 160. The Court establishes, as it has in other cases,153 that the State must publish, within six months of notification of this judgment, in an adequate and legible font: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Record; (b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and (c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on the official website of the National Police. The State must advise the Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year time frame to present its first report established in the eighth operative paragraph of this judgment. C. Other measures 161. The representative requested that a ceremony be organized to offer a public apology. The State reiterated to the Court that it should consider that this measure has been fulfilled owing to the actions conducted to comply with the recommendations in Merits Report No. 113/18. This Court does not find it necessary to order additional measures of satisfaction to those already ordered. 162. The Commission asked the Court to order the measures of non-repetition required to ensure that: (a) both the applicable laws and the respective practices for pre-trial detention and also the police criminal jurisdiction in Ecuador were compatible with the standards established in Report No. 113/18. In particular, the State must guarantee that, both by law and in practice, pre-trial detention was only admitted exceptionally, based on procedural objectives and subject to periodic review; (b) the appointment of the authorities of the police criminal jurisdiction safeguards the guarantees of independence and impartiality in both its composition and its practices, and (c) anyone convicted in the police criminal jurisdiction has a remedy that permits a comprehensive review of the conviction by a higher-ranking authority. The representative reiterated the Commission’s request. 163. The State argued that, following the new 2008 Constitution, international human rights standards had been incorporated into domestic laws and jurisprudence. The State described the domestic legal system in order to prove that the military criminal jurisdiction and the special jurisdiction of the National Police had been eliminated, together with the special jurisdiction to try members of the police and the armed forces, and that pre-trial detention established guarantees that protected the rights to personal liberty, presumption of innocence, the principle of legality, the principle of proportionality, and the reasonableness of the time of the measure. In addition, the State indicated that Ecuador’s laws also established the obligation to provide the reasons for imposing pre-trial detention. Furthermore, it argued that the victims had access to all the judicial remedies established by law, both for appeals and for cassation, for both legal and factual review. The remedies also permit a review by a higher court of both a pre-trial detention and a sentence. Lastly, the State stressed that, in 2017, a new disciplinary regime had been established for police personnel by the adoption of the Organic Code of Law Enforcement and Public Safety Entities, which ensured procedural guarantees in disciplinary proceedings. Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs, Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 177. 153 40