Judicial Academy on February 8, [2012], a pact was made with the intention of cooperating to strengthen the institutional relationship in initiatives aimed at the promotion and protection of human rights. Both institutions agreed to jointly carry out an advanced course called “Judicial use of international law of human rights by judicial officers’ for judges across the country between August 26 and 30, 2013, in Santiago.” 31. In addition, the State noted that “[f]or the 2013 academic year, the Judicial Academy h[ad] considered the following training courses for officers of the primary eschelon of the Judiciary: During April 23, 24, and 25, of that year, the course “Applying International Law’ would be held with the objective that the attendees learn, analyze and discuss the basic principles that make up the protection of rights that are essential for all human beings in the international order, particularly those stemming from the perspective of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This course would be held in the city of Talca by the University of Concepcion. Another course that would be held during the course of that year is “the Inter-American System for the Protection of Rights and Control of Conventionality, [… which] would be offered by the Center for Human Rights of the University of Chile, on May 7 to 10. Similarly, a course entitled “ ‘Questions on sexual identity and discrimination based on sex, gender, and sexual orientation’ during the month of July [2013]. […] Moreover, in the second semester of 2012, the Ministry of Justice sponsored a postgraduate Diploma on International Human Rights Law carried out by the OHCHR and the National Institute on Human Rights.” 32. Finally, the State reported that it was organizing the “first Dialogue on nondiscrimination, called 'No Discrimination: A step toward justice' [...] addressed to all national and regional directors of services dependant on and related to the Ministry (such as the Civil Registry, National Youth Service, Legal Medical Service and Gendarmerie) as well as the Ministry of Regional Secretaries, Directors of Police Investigations and Coast Guard, and the Public Criminal Defender. [...] The issues for discussion and dialogue will be addressed from the perspective of certain vulnerable groups that are most exposed to discrimination such as immigrants, people with disabilities, indigenous persons, and LGBTI persons.” 33. The representatives stated that “[t]he courses the State describes relate to general issues and they are the ones that the State has been offering prior to the Judgment and which the State made reference to during the proceedings before the Commission and then before [the] Court. With one exception, these courses reaffirm traditional human rights training in which gender stereotypes are perpetuated and the problem of discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender identity is ignored.” They added that the State “did not mention how it would prepare general education programs (campaigns) and specific trainings of a permanent nature, [...] nor has it indicated who the recipients of such programs would be in the State administration.” 34. Given the foregoing, the representatives reiterated “their intention to actively cooperate with the State in creating permanent training programs for public officials and the Judiciary, which effectively include perspectives on gender and different sexualities. Incorporating the judgment of this case, as well as others that involve diverse sexualities, is only the first step in establishing effective trainings in these areas. It is necessary that the content be prepared by organizations that handle these issues and that they be taught by experts on human rights of LGBTI persons.” Moreover, the representatives indicated that “it is important to assess the additional initiative reported by the State in its Second Brief regarding a day of dialogue [...] dealing with the greatest vulnerabilities of certain groups 9