164. The Court reiterates that Article 2 of the Convention obliges States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights or freedoms protected by the Convention (supra para. 142). The Court takes note that, as Ecuador has pointed out, a new Constitution was adopted in 2008, which repealed the police jurisdiction. The Court also notes that, at the time this judgment is delivered, the rule of detención en firme established in article 173-A of the common Code of Criminal Procedure applied in this case was no longer in force. Therefore, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to order the adoption, amendment or adaptation of provisions under Ecuador’s domestic law.154 165. Consequently, the Court finds that, in relation to the other measures of reparation requested by the Commission and the representative, the delivery of this judgment and the reparations already ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims. Therefore, it does not consider it necessary to order other measures. D. Compensation 166. The Commission asked that comprehensive reparations should be provided to each victim by measures of compensation and satisfaction that included the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the victims as a result of the violations declared in the Merits Report. 167. The representative, when referring to compensation, indicated the following with regard to each victim: a) Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino 168. With regard to Mr. Villarroel Merino, he argued that this situation had caused him untold moral and mental harm that had affected his life project, given his academic, and institutional history and his professional career, which had been publicly recognized. Therefore, in the case of nonpecuniary damage, he indicated that he “left this to the standards for fairness” of the Court.155 In the case of pecuniary damage he requested fair compensation of US$800,000.00 (eight hundred thousand United States dollars) for loss of earnings b) Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno 169. For Mr. Cevallos Moreno, he requested US$400,000.00 (four hundred thousand United States dollars) for pecuniary damage. In addition, for non-pecuniary damage and other harm, 156 he requested US$800,000.00 (eight hundred thousand United States dollars). Cf. Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 104, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 242. 154 He argued that: (a) [Mr. Villarroel Merino] had been subject to humiliation, by the confinement to a room in the Equitation and Remount Unit (UER), a police barracks on the outskirts of Quito, for one year, of someone who had been Commander General of the National Police and, at the time of the facts, was Director General of Training Schools for NonProfessional Drivers, administered by the Ecuadorian National Association of Tourism (ANETA) with a seat on the National Land Transportation and Transit Board; (b) in the performance of his functions, he had received various decorations and awards; (c) at a personal level, he had drafted a proposed for the creation of a school for non-professional drivers that he would head, and he even received a proposal to manage a private security agency; but the events impeded both these opportunities; (d) his family capital was affected because he had to dispose of an office in Quito and a plot of land in the canton of Pedernales in the province of Manabí, to cover necessities such as food, health care, his children’s education, and his maintenance costs while confined, and (e) as a result of his experience, he suffered a minor heart attack, which required prolonged medical treatment. 155 He argued that: (a) [Mr. Cevallos Moreno’s] arbitrary detention ruined his life, prejudicing his image of police officer, a role he had fulfilled for many years up to the position of Commander General, and causing him irreparable harm owing to the emotional distress he suffered; (b) since he was a public figure, when the media referred to the case without analyzing 156 41