B.3.2) Campaign on the rights of persons with reproductive disabilities Claims of the parties 339. Representative Molina asked the Court to “order the implementation of a national information campaign on the rights of persons with reproductive disabilities.” 340. The State argued that “it already has mechanisms to create awareness on reproductive health” and “that the determination of the contents of campaigns on reproductive health corresponds to the States, which are responsible for determining the use given to the health system’s scarce financial resources.” Considerations of the Court 341. The Court observes that the State did not specify the existing mechanisms to raise awareness on reproductive health. 500 Therefore, it orders the State to implement permanent education and training programs and courses on human rights, reproductive rights and nondiscrimination for judicial employees in all areas and at all echelons of the Judiciary. 501 These programs and training courses should make special mention of this Judgment and the different precedents in the corpus iuris of human rights relating to reproductive rights and the principle of non-discrimination. B.3.3) Other measures requested Claims of the parties 342. Representative May asked the Court to “ask the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States to request the Inter-American Juridical Committee […] to draft, within a reasonable time, an international norm on the embryo, bearing in mind the need to establish certain limits or the exclusion of human embryos from all commercial agreements. He also asked that “the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice [carry out] a public act in order to apologize to the victims for the violation of their human rights and for the pain and suffering caused to them, acknowledging publicly that, because of its judgment, this judicial organ thwarted the life project of the victims.” He also asked the Court to “declare that the Costa Rican Social Security Institute […] should establish a specialized IVF clinic named after Gerardo Trejos Salas.” 343. The State argued that “there is no norm that grants the Inter-American Court competence to request the Juridical Committee to advise it or to draft normative documents; therefore, the request is irreceivable.” Considerations of the Court 344. Regarding the other measures of reparation requested, the Court considers that the delivery of this Judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victims, and does not find it necessary to order the said measures. 502 500 The State merely mentioned the existence of a “Workshop on monitoring the MDG in Latin America” (merits report, volume III, folio 1253). 501 502 Similarly Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 271. Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 359, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia, para. 287.