180. Accordingly, without prejudice to the duty of State authorities to comply with the judgments of this Court 261 and to conduct the respective Convention-based judicial review within its jurisdiction, the Court finds it appropriate to order the State to create within three years a mechanism that follows existing best practices 262 for reopening judicial investigations and trials, including those that have exceeded the statute of limitations, when the Court declares in a judgment the State’s international responsibility for failing to fulfill its duty to investigate human rights violations with diligence and impartiality. E.5 Other guarantees of non-repetition requested 181. The Court considers this judgment, as well as the other measures ordered, to be sufficient and appropriate for remedying the violations suffered by the victims. It therefore does not consider it necessary to order the additional measures of non-repetition requested by the representatives. 263 F. Compensation F.1. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 182. In this section, the Court will analyze pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage jointly. 183. The Commission asked the Court to order the State of Brazil to provide monetary compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused. 184. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay the alleged victims an amount in equity set by the Court for pecuniary damage. They stated that they had made several trips over 261 Article 68 of the American Convention. Some countries of the region have certain kinds of mechanisms that allow judicial proceedings that have reached a final judgment to be reopened on the basis of the decisions of international bodies. For example, in Colombia, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 906 of 2004) notes in its Article 192 that a review action is appropriate “(...) When after a judgment in cases of human rights violations or serious infringements of international humanitarian law, an international body responsible for supervision and review of human rights—whose jurisdiction the State of Colombia has formally accepted— issues a ruling declaring the State’s conspicuous failure to fulfill its duty to investigate such violations earnestly and impartially. In such cases, it is unnecessary to confirm the existence of new facts or evidence that was unknown at the time of the deliberations.” (Available in Spanish at https://leyes.co/codigo_de_procedimiento_penal/192.htm) Article 123 of Peru's Constitutional Code of Procedure establishes that the “orders of courts whose jurisdiction the State of Peru has expressly recognized do not require, for their validity or effectiveness, any prior recognition, review, or evaluation. Those orders are communicated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the president of the judiciary, who in turn sends them to the court where domestic remedies had been exhausted and orders the judge with jurisdiction to implement them pursuant to the laws regulating proceedings for the implementation of judgments issued by supranational courts.” (available in Spanish at https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/normaslegales/nuevo-codigo-procesal-constitucional-ley-no-31307-1975873-2/). In some European countries as well, such as Spain and France, the legal framework includes provisions allowing the reconsideration of a final criminal judgment on the basis of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Article 5 bis of the Spanish Judiciary Act establishes that “an action for review can be brought before the Supreme Court against a final judicial order, in accordance with the procedural rules of each jurisdiction, when the European Court of Human Rights has declared that said order was issued in violation of any of the rights established in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or its protocols, if the nature and seriousness of the violation gives rise to persistent effects that cannot be arrested by any means other than this review” (available in Spanish at https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1985-12666). Similarly, Article 622-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of France establishes that “the reconsideration of a final criminal decision can be requested by any person found guilty of a crime when it results from a judgment issued by the European Court of Human Rights [...]” (available in French at https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006071154/LEGISCTA000006138099/#LEGISCTA000029122 011). In addition, the German Procedural Code establishes in its Article 359 that the “reopening of a trial that has been closed by final judgment shall be admissible in favor of the convict” when, among other situations: “the European Court of Human Rights has declared a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or its protocols and the judgment is based on that violation.” Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html. 262 263 The other measures requested (supra para. 167) were: (i) create specialized units within offices of the prosecutor general at both the federal and state levels; (ii) create a “Commission to Combat Violence against Human Rights Defenders” that has a diverse membership and that makes information on its cases and activities available to the public; and (iii) carry out an independent, rigorous, candid assessment of the situation of human rights defenders in the context of land conflicts. 47