D.2 Public act of recognition of responsibility 118. The Commission requested that the historical truth of the events be assembled and disseminated and, specifically, that there be a public act of recognition of responsibility. 119. The representative requested that public apologies be made for what occurred. 120. The State did not specifically refer to this matter. 121. The Court positively values the State’s recognition of international responsibility, which can be viewed as partial satisfaction for the victims for the violations declared in this Judgment. However, the Court deems it necessary to order, with a view to repairing the harm caused to the victims and to avoid that events such as those in this case are not repeated, that the State perform a public act of recognition of international responsibility in relation to the events of the present case. In that act, the State must make reference to the acts and violations of human rights declared in this Judgment. The State must ensure the participation of the victims declared in the present Judgment, if they so wish, and shall invite to the event the organization that represented them nationally and internationally. The State and the victims and/or their representatives must agree to the means of compliance of the public act, as well as the necessary details, such as the place and date of its holding. The State authorities who should be present or participate in such act should be high officials of the State. To comply with this obligation the State has one year as of the notification of this Judgment. E. Other measures requested 122. The Commission requested the adoption of the necessary measures of non-repetition to avoid that similar events occur in the future. These must include, in the opinion of the Commission, legislative, administrative and other measures so that the investigations into the forced disappearance of persons in Ecuador comply with the standards in the matter. 123. The representative requested that the State create a public policy that establishes human rights training for agents of the public forces. 124. The State maintained that “it had developed an effort of maximum importance in the investigation, documentation, recognition and full reparation in favor of the victims of forced disappearances, through the work of the Truth Commission and the enactment of the Law of Victims.” It emphasized that, by virtue of the Law of Victims, “the State recognized its objective responsibility with respect to the human rights violations documented by the Truth Commission.” That law also refers to the principal of full reparation, through which it delegates competences to different State agencies to implement the reparation of the violations documented by the Truth Commission and to create an administrative program of moral redress, which resulted in the Program of Administrative Reparation under the Ombudsman. With respect to human rights training for the public forces, the State indicated that the National Police and the Armed Forces had already implemented human rights training. It also referred to the human rights training by the Council of the Judicature for operators of justice. 125. The Court recognizes and appreciates the progress made by the State in the area of guarantees of non-repetition. As it has in other cases,104 the Court deems it appropriate that the State continue to implement those measures, but it does not consider it necessary to Cf. Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 219. 104 28