85 represented María Isabel’s family before the national and international organs to the event. The organization and other details of this public ceremony should be consulted previously and adequately with Rosa Elvira Franco. If there is any disagreement between her and the State, the Court will decide this. The State has one year from notification of this Judgment to comply with this obligation. 258. With regard to the State authorities who should attend or participate in this ceremony, as it has on other occasions, the Court indicates that they should be senior State officials. It is for the State to define who is designated for this task. C.2.3. Other measures requested 259. The Court considers that the measures of satisfaction granted are sufficient and, therefore, does not find the other requests made by the representative admissible. Regarding the request that a study grant be awarded to María Isabel Veliz Franco’s brothers, the Court considers that the compensation ordered is sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims and does not find it necessary to order such a measure. In addition, the Court takes note of the State’s observations concerning the available scholarship programs. D. Guarantees of non-repetition 260. In cases such as this one, guarantees of non-repetition acquire greater relevance as a measure of reparation to ensure that similar events are not repeated and to help prevent them.350 In this regard, the Court recalls that the State must prevent the recurrence of human rights violations such as those described in this case and take all pertinent legal, administrative and other measures to this end.351 261. Both the Inter-American Commission and the representative asked the Court to order the State to implement different guarantees of non-repetition. However, the representative did not request several measures claimed by the Commission, but asked for others that the Commission had not claimed. Consequently, the Court will proceed to examine, first, the measures requested only by the Inter-American Commission; then the measures requested by both the representative and the Commission and, lastly, those that have been requested only by the representative. D.1) Request to enhance the institutional capacity to combat impunity in cases of violence against women and to ensure that such cases are adequately prevented, investigated, punished and redressed D.1.1. Arguments of the Commission and the State 262. The Commission considered that the Court should order the State to adopt a “comprehensive and coordinated policy, supported by sufficient public resources to ensure that the specific cases of violence against women are adequately prevented, investigated, punished and redressed.” In addition, it asked that “the institutional capacity to combat impunity in cases of violence against women [be enhanced], through effective criminal investigations conducted from a gender perspective and that have constant judicial oversight, thereby ensuring proper punishment and redress.” 263. The State indicated that it “already has programs aimed at enhancing the institutional capacity to combat impunity in case of violence against women, [whose] focus is to prevent, punish and eventually eradicate this.” It also indicated that “in compliance 350 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 92, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 234. 351 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 166, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family, supra, para. 265.