9 29. That the representatives confirmed the effective compliance with such operative paragraph. 30. That the Commission mentioned in the hearing that even when on other occasions it has expressed its misgivings with respect to publication of the Judgments of the Court in the “El Telégrafo” newspaper, in the instant case, given the agreement by the victims, it deems such operative paragraph to have been complied with. 31. That given the evidence on record in the case file, consisting in copies of the publications in the newspaper with national coverage and in the Official Gazette of the State, and the expression of the representatives and the Commission coinciding in considering this point to have been complied with, this Tribunal finds it to be fully complied with. * * * Adapting domestic legislation on states of emergency and suspension of guarantees 32. That as regards the obligation to adopt all legal, administrative and other measures necessary to prevent further occurrence of similar facts; especially, the State must adapt its domestic legislation on states of emergency and suspension of guarantees, and in particular the provisions of its National Security Law, to ensure its adequacy with the American Convention (operative paragraph number nine in the Judgment), the State pointed out in the course of the hearing that it had submitted to the Comisión Legislativa [Legislation Committee] the draft bill of a Ley Orgánica de Garantías Jurisdiccionales y Control Constitucional [Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control Organic Act], in which there is a section called “constitutional control of the states of exception”, wherein a formal and substantive control of the declaration of a state of exception and of the measures adopted is established, as well as its coexistence with a political control in charge of the Asamblea Legislativa [Legislative Assembly]. 33. That, in their turn, the representatives indicated that “the Tribunal Constitucional [Constitutional Court] in a June [2008] Judgment declared Articles 145 [and 147] of the Ley de Seguridad Nacional [National Security Law], whereby military courts were allowed to judge civilians during states of emergency, to be unconstitutional.” Likewise, the representatives supplied information about the regulation of states of emergency after the adoption of the new Constitution of Ecuador. 34. That the Commission, in the course of the hearing, expressed its concern about Article 164 of the Constitution being much like the former text, and including “serious internal commotion” or “public disaster”, among the grounds for decreeing the state of exception, for which reason it alleged “in the instant case, in the context of which the record and the problems attending the state of emergency decreed in order to fight social protests and common crime […]. This latter term is very ambiguous and can be viewed from many subjective standpoints.” 35. That in the Judgment, the Court determined that neither Decree No. 86 declaring the state of emergency and the suspension of guarantees nor the wording in the Ley de Seguridad Nacional [National Security Law] in force in Ecuador at the time of the extrajudicial execution of Wilmer Zambrano-Vélez, Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and José Miguel Caicedo, set any limits in time or in space to