123. The representatives asked the Court to also order the State to: “c. Present before the Congress of the Nation a bill reforming the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Nation so that it is mandatory in all criminal cases in which State security forces took part or where the security forces members are suspects for the Court to provide all evidence requested by the Public Prosecutor's Office. When the evidence is requested by the complaint, the Judge may only deny it in a properly-justified decision and following transfer of the matter to the Prosecutor's Office for it to express whether it is in favor of or against releasing the evidence. In the event that the Office of the Prosecutor deems its release inappropriate, it must provide justification, and the complainant shall be able to appeal it to a higher court than the forum denying it” and "d. Issue the pertinent legal norms so that every citizen has the right to access the internal report files of police officers, regardless of who filed the complaint or if they were a victim, since they are 'public officials' and therefore the information about their conduct must also be public ”. 124. Regarding this point, the Court finds that in situations such as this case, the cooperation of justice institutions is essential for an effective search for the truth. The creation of PROCUVIN is a wise step to guarantee a better and more objective investigation into the actions of the security forces. The existence of a body of the Office of the Prosecutor specializing in matters of institutionalized violence addresses the aims stated by the representatives, so the Court does not consider it necessary to order changes to the law. 125. Regarding the rest of the measures requested by the Commission and the representatives for satisfaction, such as the publication of the public hearing and the erection of a monument, the Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims. Therefore, it does not consider it necessary to order these additional measures, without prejudice to whether the State may decide to adopt and grant them domestically. E.2. Measures of non-repetition 126. Regarding the guarantees of non-repetition, the representatives, taking into consideration that “the police Edicts that authorized detentions based on an individual’s attitude and characteristics […] were repealed and replaced by the Urban Coexistence Code,” and that “recent years have seen significant setbacks in this area with security forces once again granted discretionary powers to arrest and use of force–even lethal force–on people without proper judicial control,” they asked that the State “e.4 […] adapt domestic law to guarantee that arbitrary detentions based on racial profiling and extrajudicial executions do not take place.” 127. The State highlighted that, indeed, "more recently, other rules that the previous national government administration sought to impose that encouraged the police to act indiscriminately were repealed by the new administration of the Ministry of Security of the Nation." However, during the public hearing, the State made reference to the fact that certain police edicts are still in force in some provinces of the country under laws that have other names but the same codification problems. 128. This Court underscores the effort made by the State to purge the provisions in its legal system that could encourage indiscriminate police action, particularly the ones in force in the City of Buenos Aires. Effectively, in March 1998, the Legislature of the City of Buenos Aires passed the Urban Coexistence Code,162 which involved removing the Federal Police's power to detain people under police orders. Currently, this area is governed by the 162 Law No. 10 of March 9, 1998. 36