227. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court considers it reasonable to assume that the victim would have continued in the Army if the proceedings to which he was subjected had not occurred. This aspect will be considered when the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages are established below. C. Measures of satisfaction requested: Publication of the judgment 228. The Commission made no comment regarding this measure. 229. The representative requested the Court to order the State to publish the official summary of the judgment in the ‘El Peruano’ Official Newspaper, and in a newspaper of nationwide circulation, the place of residence of Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio, and the publication of the judgment, in its entirety, on the websites of the State of Peru, the Ministry of Defense and the Army of Peru. 230. The State pointed out that if the Court were to order this measure, it would make the corresponding publication, following the terms set forth by the Court, as it has done in other cases. 231. The Court considers that, as it has ordered in other cases,197 the State must publish, within six months from the notification of this judgment: a) the official summary of this judgment, prepared by the Court, one time only, in the Official Newspaper in a legible and adequate font size; b) the official summary of this judgment, prepared by the Court, one time only, in a newspaper of nationwide circulation, in a legible and adequate font size, and c) this judgment, in its entirety, which shall be made available during one year, in an official State website that is accessible to the public. The State shall immediately inform this Court when it makes each of the publications ordered, regardless of the term of one year to submit the report in conformity with operative paragraph 24 of this judgment. D. Other measures requested 232. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to establish guarantees of nonrepetition, legislative, administrative or other measures to ensure that: i) the principle of presumption of innocence and other guarantees of due process be respected during administrative sanctioning proceedings; ii) the principle of ne bis in idem be respected, so as to prevent multiple judgments for the same facts in the exercise of the punitive power of the State, both in the administrative and criminal jurisdictions; and iii) the application of preventive detention abides by the standards declared in the Report on the Merits, so that it does not constitute a punitive measure; specifically, that it has procedural purposes and that its duration is strictly necessary to achieve such purposes. 233. The representative requested that the State be ordered to: i) “investigate and, if applicable, sanction the behavior of public servants in cases of procedural and investigative irregularities” against the victim. Also, to “[e]nsure that the persons involved in the investigation, including victims, witnesses and justice agents, have adequate security guarantees” and to “publicly disseminate the results of these proceedings”; ii) “perform a public act of acknowledgment of responsibility”; and iii) provide training on human rights to instructors, officials and recruits “on the dignity of the person and the right to physical, mental and moral integrity, and the limits established by those rights on the training and command of military instructors.” 234. The State did not refer to the measures requested by the Commission. Regarding the investigation requested by the representative, it indicated that in this case there is no violation of 197 Cf. Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, supra, para. 79, and Case of Rodríguez Revolorio v. Guatemala, supra, para. 157. 51