25 appropriate font size; and c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year on an official website accessible to the public. 99. The State shall immediately notify this Court once it has carried out each of the publications ordered. C. Other measures requested 100. The representatives requested that a public apology be made to the relatives of Manuel Martínez Coronado by the State of Guatemala, specifically by an official representing the judiciary. They asked that this apology acknowledge the errors made in the various local jurisdictions in violation of their fundamental rights and promise that the events in this case will not be repeated. They requested that in this ceremony the State admit to violations in the administration of justice and commit to abolishing the death penalty. In addition, they requested the following as guarantees of non-repetition: i) order the State to bring the Criminal Code of Guatemala into agreement with the judgments of the Constitutional Court—that is, formally repealing the death penalty for criminal offenses; ii) order the State to begin a discussion about the existing procedural system, its implications, and its significance in a democracy under the rule of law, while learning about different experiences through comparative law; iii) promote or bolster, through the relevant bodies, initiatives such as constitutional amendments to eliminate references to the death penalty, the elimination of the criterion of dangerousness from the criminal code, and the elimination of references to the death penalty in that code; iv) adopt the measures necessary to ensure the full efficacy of public defense, especially in cases that involve the possible imposition of severe sentences; v) urge the State to ratify the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty; vi) adopt de facto and de jure measures to ensure that no provisions in Guatemalan law violate human rights; vii) adopt measures of non-repetition, modifying its authority in order to promptly and effectively take steps to completely remove the death penalty from the legislation; and viii) take all necessary steps to implement training designed to inform the authorities about the principles and standards of human rights protection, international humanitarian law, and especially the protection and preservation of life. 101. The State noted that: i) as a sovereign state, it cannot be ordered to make changes to its own legal system, with its sovereignty thereby disregarded, and ii) it is the responsibility of the State authorities and of the people to make these kinds of decisions regarding the legal system. However, it has also stated that there are currently two positions on the issue of whether to abolish or resume the death penalty, which have been formally presented to the Congress of the Republic. The State requested that the Court not grant this measure of non-repetition, as it violates the sovereignty of the country by interfering in issues that are the responsibility of the legislature. Furthermore, it declared that it is not responsible for any of the alleged violations; thus, it did not agree to the public apology as described by the representatives. 102. Regarding the requested measures of reparation, the Court notes that some of them do not have a causal nexus with the violations declared in this judgment; therefore, issuing this judgment and ordering the reparations detailed in this chapter is sufficient and adequate for remedying the violations suffered by the victim, and it is not necessary to order additional measures. 103. Nevertheless, the Court has determined in its compliance monitoring order of February 6, 2019, in the case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, that the Constitutional Court of Guatemala has declared unconstitutional the penultimate part of Article 132 of the criminal code; consequently, the dangerousness of the agent ceased to have effect as a criterion for applying the death penalty as of the day after the publication of the constitutional review judgment. Therefore, the Inter-American Court decided that the State had fully complied with the order to “abstain from applying the part of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of Guatemala that refers to the dangerousness of the agent and