- 118 - “injured party” and, in their capacity as victims of the violations declared in Chapter IX, they will be the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court below. B. Preliminary considerations concerning reparations B.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 331. The State asked the Court to evaluate, based on the principle of complementarity, the actions that the State had already implemented as a result of its acknowledgement of responsibility and adoption of the Inter-American Commission’s Merits Report, “in order to limit its ruling on new reparations in this case, particularly in light of the requests for reparation made by the representative in the motions and pleadings brief.” 332. The representatives indicated that the State's acknowledgement of responsibility had not been reflected in the adoption of measures of reparation in favor of the victims. They alleged that it was paradoxical that Mexico would ask that that no measure of reparation of any type be ordered, with the exception of the publication of the judgment. They also indicated that most of the measures to which Mexico referred were not specifically addressed at combating the sexual torture of women by State agents. The also indicated that the State had provided almost no information on the positive impact of the measures and, therefore, they could not be considered measures of non-repetition. B.2 Considerations of the Court 333. In this case, the Court notes that, in the context of the procedure before the Inter-American Commission, the State proposed a comprehensive reparation plan that offered the victims procedures aimed at the elimination of their criminal records, payment of compensation, educational scholarships, health services, housing and investigation of the facts, among other measures.443 Nevertheless, as the State itself has noted, in many cases these measures have not been implemented, either because the victims have not given their consent or for other reasons. In this regard, the Court has established that, for it to be inappropriate to order additional reparations to those already granted in the domestic sphere, it is not sufficient that the State indicate that reparations have been or can be granted through internal mechanisms. In addition, the measures must have been executed in such a way that the Court can evaluate whether they have effectively redressed the consequences of the action or situation that constituted the violation of human rights in the specific case, or the Court must be provided with sufficient information to determine whether those reparations are adequate and whether guarantees exist that the internal reparation mechanisms are sufficient.444 These requirements have not been met in this case. Cf. The Mexican State’s reports and their annexes at the merits stage presented between January and September 2016 (evidence file, folios 30291 to 30586); Minutes of the Sub-Secretariat of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior of January 27, 2016 (evidence file, folios 30587 to 30590); Minutes of the Sub-Secretariat of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior of February 11, 2016 (evidence file, folios 30591 to 30595); Minutes of the Sub-Secretariat of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior of July 11, 2016 (evidence file, folios 30596 to 30602). 443 Cf. Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310, para. 126, and Case of the Dismissed PetroPeru Workers et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 208. 444