28 132. The Inter-American Commission requested the Court to order the State the adoption of "the legal, administrative and any other type of measures necessary to avoid the recurrence of similar actions, independent of the legislative modifications already adopted after the violations in this case had taken place”. The representative did not request this measure of reparation and the State presented no argument in this respect. 133. The Court notes that the Commission did not identify which are the legislative or any other type of measures it requests. The Tribunal recalls that, pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it is the duty of the Commission to indicate in the application, the requests related to reparations and costs, as well as the legal arguments and the pertinent conclusions. This duty is not fulfilled with general requests with no indication of the facts and supporting evidence on which it will bear, in order to analyze the purpose, reasonability and scope. 134. Without prejudice to the foregoing and considering the violations declared in the instant case, the Tribunal deems appropriate to order the State to adapt, within a reasonable term, its domestic legal system, in order to guarantee the right to review by a higher court, according to Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, to every person tried for a crime, even to those persons who enjoy a special judicial privilege. 135. As to the domestic rules that hindered the access of the person being investigated to the investigative proceeding and the rules based solely on the existence of "indications of criminal responsibility" to order the arrest, which were declared to be incompatible with Article 2 of the Convention (supra paras. 57 and 116), the Tribunal notes that they have been modified as of the year 1999 and that the Commission, during the entire proceeding before the Court, “positively” valued said modifications. Based on the foregoing, the Court abstains from ordering a measure of reparation in relation to this aspect. 4. Publication of the Judgment 136. The Commission and the representative requested the Tribunal to order the State to publish this judgment. The State present no argument in this respect. 137. As ordered by this Tribunal in other cases,75 the State shall publish, at least once, in the Official Gazette and in another national daily newspaper, paragraphs 20 to 24, 35, 39 to 41, 47, 48, 56, 57, 60, 63, 64, 78, 88 to 91, 115, 116 and 118 to 123 of the present Judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, and the operative paragraphs therein. Said publications shall be made within six months following notice of this Judgment. 5. public apologies 138. The Commission and the representative requested the Court to order the State to publicly acknowledge its international responsibility for the harm inflicted. The State did not present arguments in this aspect. 139. The Court has ordered, on several occasions, defendant States the organization of acts to confer dignity on the victim or in the victim’s memory, when the seriousness of the facts and the violations committed call for it. For example, in 75 Cf. Case of La Cantuta V. Peru, supra note 40, para. 227; Case of Rios et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 405; and Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 415.