96 being prepared for that purpose, the Court considers it pertinent to urge the State to adopt a national strategy to search for and determine the whereabouts of those who disappeared during the armed conflict in Peru, in parallel and complementary to the judicial proceedings. The aim is to ensure that the available information on possible burial or burial sites is gathered and that their identification and protection is assured for their preservation. The actions necessary for the exhumation of remains at such sites should be systematically and rigorously initiated and/or continued, and the use of the different means of forensic identification should be ensured. These actions will not be supervised by the Court. C.5. Other measures requested 319. The Commission requested the adoption of the necessary measures to prevent similar events from occurring in the future, in accordance with the duty to guarantee human rights recognized in the American Convention. In particular, it requested the implementation of permanent programs on human rights and international humanitarian in the training schools of the Armed Forces. The representatives did not refer to this point. The State explained that for several years, it has been implementing continuous and multiple training programs on international human rights law and international humanitarian law for various State officials, especially in the armed forces, as well as on the State’s duties with respect to the American Convention and other international instruments, both regional and universal. It held that the purpose of these programs is to train State agents in order to prevent future acts similar to those that occurred in the present case, which is fully consistent with the duty of prevention and guarantee recognize in the American Convention. Specifically, the State reported that the Center for International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights of the Peruvian Ministry of Defense is the academic body in charge of training armed forces personnel on these issues and presented detailed information on the training programs that are being developed. Finally, the State indicated that neither the Commission nor the representatives provided information showing that the measures it had taken were insufficient, and asked the Court not to consider the request for said measure of reparation. 320. The Court recalls that in the cases of La Cantuta, 369 Anzualdo Castro 370 and more recently in the case of Osorio Rivera, 371 of November 26, 2013, the Court ordered the Peruvian State to implement permanent human rights training courses for members of the armed forces and the police. Therefore, the Court does not consider it pertinent to order this measure of reparation again, since it will continue to assess its implementation at the stage of monitoring compliance in the aforementioned cases. 321. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to provide the victims’ next of kin who require it with a scholarship to study at university level, so that they can pursue the career of their choice. They argued that the forced disappearance of the victims and the destruction of their homes and property seriously affected their opportunities for subsistence, a situation that in some cases has prevented them from having the resources to provide their descendants with an adequate education. In this regard, they referred to the specific cases of the families of Gregorio Hilario Quispe, Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque and Marino Huamaní Vergara. The Commission did not refer to this point. The State agreed to convene the relevant sectors and entities, in order to discuss the possibility of effectively delivering the requested scholarships to the alleged victims’ next of kin. At the public hearing, it explained that in the context of monitoring compliance with the recommendations made by the Commission in its Admissibility and Merits Report, conversations were held with the representatives at the domestic level in order to channel this request for reparation in an efficient manner; however, “no information was provided, there was a disagreement about the names [and] about some of the people who had been involved.” 369 370 371 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 240. Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 193. Cf. Case of Osorio Rivera v. Peru, supra, para. 274.