"the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal is, in itself, a remedy that, once published in the Official Gazette, produces the same effect as a public apology.” Therefore, the State indicated that "this measure is not applicable in this case.” 141. The Court considers it appropriate to order, 107 as it has done in other cases, within a period of six months, from the notification of this Judgment: a) the official summary of the Judgment drafted by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette; b) the official summary of the Judgment drafted by the Court, once, in a newspaper of national circulation, and c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on the official website. 142. The Court considers that said measures of satisfaction are sufficient to repair this aspect of the present case. C. Other requested measures of reparation 1. Measures for training of public officials 143. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to carry out specific training courses on human rights for the military high command “in order for them to understand that they are subject to legal rules and forced to comply with the judgments issued by tribunals,” and to take all necessary measures to adapt its legislation with the American Convention and the jurisprudence of this Court, especially with regard to the enforcement of court decisions and other measures to ensure that such events do not recur. For its part, the Commission did not submit specific comments regarding the guarantee of non-repetition, and the State did not address this point. 144. This Court deems that since no violation of Article 2 of the Convention was declared, nor the existence of general patterns of noncompliance with the rulings, the Court considers that it is unnecessary to order this measure in the present case. 2. Obligation to carry out an administrative investigation that resulted in a violation 145. The representatives made known before the Court that “as a guarantee of non-repetition, administrative or other measures should be applied to remove the State officials responsible for the contempt of the judgments of the domestic tribunals.” Moreover, they requested that the Court order the State to, “within a reasonable period of time, remove all the legal and factual obstacles and mechanisms that prevent the investigation, identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible” for the noncompliance of the decision issued by the highest governing body of constitutional control. For its part, the Commission did not 107 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos V. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, Operative Paragraph 5.d); Case of Abrill Alosilla V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 92, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 125. 42