each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year term it has to present its first has been provided indicated in operative paragraph of this Judgment. D. Other measures requested 116. The Commission requested that the JEM be trained "in relation to the guarantee of defense, the principle of legality, and freedom of expression that are relevant in the exercise of its disciplinary function." It also requested "[a]dopting the legislative, administrative or any other measures necessary to ensure that disciplinary proceedings against prosecutors are compatible with the due process standards of administrators of justice." Specifically, it requested that measures be taken "so that the processes guarantee the right to appeal the sanctioning ruling and judicial protection." 117. In its concluding observations, it considered that, taking into account the nature of the case, the Court could "reflect on the imposition of punitive damages in the face of state behavior that manifestly impairs essential elements of democratic constitutionalism such as the independence of judges and prosecutors. 118. The representative requested both in its Brief of Requests and Arguments and in its closing arguments, to "[i]mplement the recommendations of an institutional nature included by the Commission in its Merits Report, in order to avoid the repetition of [the] facts." 119. The State declared that "the JEM regulates and provides training to its officials on a daily basis." It also considered that the claim to award punitive damages is not only contrary to the case law of the Court, but also to public international law. 120. With regard to the requests for training, the Court notes that the violations of rights declared in this Judgment did not derive from deficiencies in the training or professionalization of those who are members of public authorities or administrators of justice. Consequently, such measures do not have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, and therefore it is not appropriate to grant the request. 121. The Court also recalls that in the instant case, the State's failure to adopt provisions of domestic law was not established. Therefore, the Court does not consider it pertinent to order general measures for the modification of the internal regulations. 122. With respect to punitive damages, the Court reiterates the compensatory nature of the indemnities, whose nature and amount depend on the damage caused, and therefore cannot mean either enrichment or impoverishment for the victims or their successors (infra paragraph 126). Likewise, it has rejected claims for compensations in amounts meant to deter or to serve as an example.140 Therefore, the Court considers these claims to be inadmissible. E. Compensation 140 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 38, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 161. 35