(ii) Public act to acknowledge international responsibility 135. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to organize an act to offer a public apology to Mr. Jenkins by the person who is the official institutional representative of the Judiciary in the State of Argentina. They also asked the Court to order the State to conduct, through its Ministry of Justice, a public ceremony to apologize to Mr. Jenkins. 136. As indicated above (supra para. 132), the State argued that the delivery and dissemination of the judgment by diverse media would be a sufficient and adequate measure of reparation. 137. The Commission did not comment on this request. 138. The Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered herein are sufficient and adequate. C. Other measures requested 139. The Commission asked that the State adapt its domestic laws to the standards for preventive detention described in its Merits Report. In particular, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to ensure that: (i) preventive detention was only applied on an exceptional basis; (ii) preventive detention was limited by the principles of legality, presumption of innocence, necessity and proportionality, and (iii) no difference in treatment was applied in relation to the two preceding points based on the nature of the offense. 140. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to adapt its domestic law to the international covenants and conventions it had signed, derogating any laws that contravened the procedural principles already examined. Specifically, the representatives asked for the derogation of article 11 [sic] of Law No. 24,390 and any law that permitted or established the existence of offenses for which conditional release was automatically ruled out, presuming, de jure, the guilt of the defendant and using a precautionary measure of last resort, such as advance punishment. The representatives added that it was important that the State take all necessary measures to comply with the guarantees included in Article 7(5) of the Convention and, specifically with regard to that article, establish a peremptory time limit for ending preventive or pre-trial detention. 141. The representatives also asked the Court to order the State to initiate a discussion on the procedural system in force, its implications and importance within the democratic rule of law, analyzing different experiences in comparative law that would not only improve access to justice but also facilitate its modernization by projects such as the “Innocence Project.” In addition, the representatives asked that the State comply with the provisions of domestic and international law concerning where defendants who are detained should be accommodated, penalizing anyone who violated those provisions, and also ensure that the cells and other places where individuals who are detained, apprehended or retained are lodged comply with hygiene, health and cleanliness conditions that meet international standards. Lastly, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to create independent and impartial oversight bodies to prevent the repetition of acts that violate fundamental rights and freedoms declared and accepted as such. 142. The State indicated, with regard to the adaptation of domestic law to the international covenants and conventions it had signed, that it should be recalled that there had been a change in jurisprudence in Argentina as a result of the declaration that article 10 of Law No. 24,390 was unconstitutional which had served as an interpretive standard for the country’s other courts. The State also indicated that Law No. 24,390, which regulated preventive detention in the Argentine Republic, established its limits and different assumptions for the admissibility of that measure. 33