of this Judgment (supra paras. 428 and 429), are measures of reparation that are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations against the victims in this case. b) Award of scholarships 431. CEJIL asked that, in order to redress the non-pecuniary harm caused by the facts of this case, “additional compensation be provided by the award of scholarships [to the children of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe] so that they may continue and/or complete their studies” if they so wish. The FIDH asked that the Court order the State to “adopt measures of educational reinsertion for the victims and their families, […] in particular, the Indigenous Peoples Scholarship for all the children of the victims, from the start of their education until their academic training has been completed, whether this be at the university, technical or professional level.” 432. The Court has verified that the prosecution, arbitrary pre-trial detention and criminal conviction of the victims based on the application of a law that violates the Convention (supra paras. 168-177) meant that they could not contribute to the maintenance and care of their families as they were doing prior to the events of this case, and this had repercussions on the financial situation of their family unit and, consequently, on the possibility that their children could attend school or complete their studies.419 Therefore, and taking the representatives’ request into account, as it has in other cases,420 the Court finds it appropriate to order, as a measure of satisfaction in this case, that the State award scholarships in Chilean public establishments to the children of the eight victims in this case that cover all the costs of their education until the conclusion of their advanced studies, whether these are of a technical or academic nature. The State’s compliance with this obligation means that the beneficiaries must take certain steps in order to exercise their right to this measure of reparation.421 Therefore, those who request this measure of reparation, or their legal representatives, have six months as of notification of this Judgment to advise the State of their scholarship requirements. 4. Guarantee of non-repetition: adaptation of domestic law in relation to the right of the defense to examine witnesses 433. Both the Inter-American Commission and the common interveners requested the adoption of measures relating to the adaptation of domestic law. The Court will now rule on the measure related to the right of the defense to examine witnesses and will then rule on other measures requested in relation to the adaptation of domestic law (infra paras. 455-464). 434. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “[a]dapt domestic laws governing criminal procedure so that they are compatible with the right recognized in Article 8(2)(f)) […] of the American Convention.” Meanwhile, the FIDH asked that the Court “order […] the adaptation of the Counter-terrorism Act to international standards” and “the elimination of anonymous or faceless witnesses, establishing ways to protect witnesses that are consistent with due process.” 419 Cf. Affidavits prepared on May 14, 2013, by presumed victim Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, by witnesses Freddy Jonathan Marileo Marileo and Gloria Isabel Millacheo Ñanco; on May 15, 2013, by expert witness Ruth Elizabeth Vargas Forman in relation to Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe and family, and in relation to Pascual Huantequeo Pichún Paillalao, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia and José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán; on May 16, 2013, by witnesses Matías Ancalaf Prado, Karina del Carmen Prado Figueroa and Flora Collonao Millano; on May 17, 2013, by presumed victim José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, and written statement made on May 27, 2013, by Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 29, 30, 82, 83, 109, 110, 197, 199, 200, 209, 213, 255, 256, 265, 418 and 637). 420 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, para. 237, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru, para. 267. 421 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia, paras. 27 and 28, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010 Series C No. 216, para. 257. 141