4 c) with regard to the obligation to adopt, “in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, … those measures for the protection of human rights that ensure the free and full exercise of the rights to life, freedom and humane treatment, and to a fair trial and judicial protection, in order to avoid future harmful acts such as those of this case,” the State reported that human rights and international humanitarian law had been introduced into the training programs at the Armed Forces academies; it presented a copy of the National Police report, dated April 7, 2003, which states that police-related laws are consistent with the international human rights treaties and conventions that Bolivia has signed; in its brief of March 10, 2004, it reported that “dissemination of and training in human rights in the Armed Forces and National Police had become one of the objectives so that law-enforcement personnel will consider the implications of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.” The Inter-American Commission stated in this regard that “according to the information supplied by the State, it is, in theory, complying with the reparation ordered by the Court.” However, the representatives indicated that the actions taken by the State were not sufficient to “educate public officials on the crime of forced disappearance”; and d) concerning the payment of compensation for pecuniary damages, from the evidence presented by the State as attachments to its report, the understanding is that it paid the three compensations that the Court ordered in its Judgment for the victim’s mother. In their comments, the representatives stated that they believed that the State had complied with the order regarding pecuniary damages. However, in its comments, the Commission wrote that “Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero is still owed the sum of US$ 20,000[.]00 […]”. Based on these comments, the Commission and the State were asked to clarify whether the compensation ordered in operative paragraph eight of the Judgment on reparations had in fact been paid. 4. The June 3, 2004 brief where the State reported on compliance “with operative paragraph 6 of the Judgment on reparations, in which it was ordered to “officially assign the name of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza to an educational establishment in Santa Cruz.” The State attached a copy of Education Department Service Note (SEDUCA) No. 263/DIR/221/04, dated April 15, 2004, which the Director of SEDUCA of Santa Cruz sent to the Vice Minister of Education to inform him that “on November 13, 2003, the Honorable City Council of Santa Cruz de la Sierra issued Municipal Ordinance No. 402/2003 whereby an educational establishment shall henceforth be known as the ‘Jose Carlos Trujillo Oroza educational unit,’ at all shifts and levels. In response to the Commission’s comments, it also reported that “concerning [operative paragraph one of the Judgment on reparations], this responsibility was assigned to the Ministry of Defense,” through the establishment of a “Ministerial task force, which will include representatives from ASOFAM”; it also reported that, “with regard to [operative paragraph two of the Judgment on reparations] the Office of the Vice Minister of Justice [will be] in charge of coordinating the Congressional Committees […] for enactment” of the law. 5. The brief of June 18, 2004, in which the Inter-American Commission presented the observations requested in the Secretariat’s note of May 17, 2004 (supra Having Seen 3) concerning operative paragraph eight of the Judgment on