58. For its part, the Commission stated that “[it] takes note of the efforts by the State of Mexico to comply with this paragraph. Nevertheless, it observe[d] the absence of precise information regarding the specific contents of the trainings, in light of the orders of the Court[, since] [b]ased on the available information, it is not possible to conclude that the trainings conducted up to this point are sufficient to satisfy this measure of non-repetition, with the degree of specificity in its content as well as the level of performance required to have the effect for which it was conceived.” Considerations of the Court 59. The Court established, in the Judgment, that the training programs and courses should include, where pertinent, the study of the provisions contained in the Istanbul Protocol. 26 Therefore, as it has done previously 27, the Court required the State to continue implementing permanent training programs and courses on diligent investigation in cases of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and torture. Moreover, it indicated that such courses should be imparted to Federal officials and Guerrero state officials, and particularly, to members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Judiciary, the Police and health sector personnel with competence in such cases and whose functions require them to assist victims alleging violations of their personal integrity. Furthermore, this Court considered it important to strengthen the State’s institutional capabilities through training programs for the Mexican Armed Forces on the principles and standards for the protection of human rights, including the restrictions to which they are subject 28, in order to avoid the repetition of events similar to those of this case. 29 60. On the basis of the information offered by the State in the first and second report of compliance with the Judgment, and despite the fact that the representatives argued that they had not gotten a response to the “training proposal with guidelines [they] consider[ed] necessary,” the Court notes that the State, through the various federal and state authorities, has carried out numerous activities following the notification of the Judgment to implement the orders of the Court with respect to the establishment of educational programs directed at state officials with competence in such cases and whose functions require them to assist victims alleging violations of their personal integrity. The Court finds that the vast majority of the activities are related to the reparation provided for in the Judgment. Consequently, the State has complied with the present operative paragraph of the Judgment and is encouraged to continue with these training processes. 26 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 245. 27 Cf. Case of González and others (“the Cotton Fields”) V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No.205, para. 541, and Case of Rosendo Cantú and others V. México, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, paras. 245 and 246. 28 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 245. 29 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 245. 19