the website of the Human Rights Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. It shall also notify the main non-governmental human rights organizations. Interested persons must present their requests for compensation within a period of 12 months, starting from the end of the 3-month period during which the aforementioned announcement is to be published. The State is required to observe its international obligations on equal protection. Therefore, res judicata cannot be invoked for the claims presented, and the interested parties must be permitted to present all the information necessary to accredit their claims. E. Other measures requested 69. In the section on nonpecuniary measures, the representative requested the following measures: That the Argentine State update the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights’ administrative procedures as far as application of the policies on reparations to guarantee the implementation of a suitable, effective, and swift mechanism for handling and resolving this case in particular and other requests for reparation that remain pending resolution or that may be submitted in the future. […] [that] the State must specifically instruct the lawyers, judges, judicial branch officials, and personnel involved in handling the requests for information to standardize and adjust the criteria for assessing the testimony of the victims of crimes against humanity and other evidence produced in each specific case to adhere to the criteria of the IACHR and the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. It must therefore instruct them to give special consideration to the allegation of the facts as reported by the victims themselves as especially relevant evidence when supplementary documentary or testimonial evidence cannot be secured due to the context of secrecy and illegality in which the facts took place. The officials involved must also be instructed to adhere to existing precedents on the subject. […] The State must conduct regular trainings of the various agents, officials, and members of the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) on human rights, especially the treatment of witnesses and assessment of the testimony of victims of human rights violations, in keeping with current criteria on the matter. The State must amend its internal laws in terms of procedure and substance to bring them in line with persons’ right to judicial rulings that are properly grounded on the administrative and judicial remedies sought, including before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, and especially when involving reparations and/or allegations of human rights violations. 70. The State rejected the measures of non-repetition requested by the representative, underscoring the exceptional nature of Mr. Almeida’s case. It argued that “both the justice system and the administrative system have for years employed a broad interpretation of cases of supervised release” and asked that these measures be rejected. 71. This Court takes note of the precedent established on November 8, 2003, by the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber in case 143625/2002: Robasto, Jorge Enrique v. Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (supra para. 40) with regard to the broad interpretation of the concept of supervised release. It also takes note of the examples presented by the State of administrative case files processed subsequent to this precedent in which the payment of compensation for the days during which victims were subjected to a regime of supervised release was recognized.63 It therefore concludes that the exclusion of de facto supervised release from Cf. Technical reports on Law 24,043 issued by the Office on Reparations Laws of the Secretariat on Human Rights of the Nation, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (evidence file, folios 1339 to 1368). 63 19