11 the State has not provided information on the creation of a committee to review and propose how to reform the laws and decrees, as well as resolutions, circulars or institutional communications that allow detentions to be made by the police without objective grounds therefor, as well as the mistreatment of those held in detention.” Thus, the Commission “[was] concerned about the lack of more concrete progress in complying with the guarantees of non-repetition ordered in the [J]udgment,” and concluded that the State “has yet to satisfy its obligation to […] enact such legislative and other reforms as are necessary to avoid the repetition of similar facts in the future.” 33. That, as per the statements made by the parties (supra Considering clauses Nos. 29 to 32), the State has adopted measures aimed at complying with the orders contained in the fifth operative paragraph of the Judgment. In this regard, the Court acknowledges the efforts made by the State to set up mechanisms aimed at adjusting the domestic legislation and practices on the subject of warrantless child detentions in cases other than cases of flagrante delicto and those related to the detention of children. Also, the Court has taken note of the State’s disposition to adjust its criminal procedural laws, as well as its laws relating to the general protection of children. In this regard, the Court has taken note of the actions undertaken by the State to create the Committee on the Legislative Reform and Updating of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, and the consultation mechanism on the legislative changes in connection with the instant case (supra Considering clause No. 29). 34. That, notwithstanding the foregoing and in addition to the various measures that were adopted and are pending approval, the State must take measures of a different nature in order that such system will be effectively applied at the domestic level and, accordingly, enforced by the relevant parties, particularly in connection with the warrantless detention of children in cases other than cases of flagrante delicto and the obligation to maintain adequate conditions for the detention of children. Such obligation also means that the State must take such action as will allow the implementation and application of said measures in the twenty-three provinces and the capital city of the State of Argentina. 35. That the State must continue to take such measures as are necessary to guarantee effective compliance,8 at the national level, with the obligation to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to bring the domestic legal system in line with the international rules on human rights, so as to avoid the future repetition of facts and violations such as those of the instant case. * * * 36. That, as reported by the State and the representatives, after the private hearing on monitoring compliance with the Judgment held on August 14, 2008, they signed an agreement whereby the State, among other things, undertook to “organize a meeting within 8 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, supra note 5, para. 142.