43 152. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to adopt all necessary measures in the domestic order to adapt its legislation on states of exception so as to bring it strictly in line with the American Convention, the jurisprudential interpretations of the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court as well as other applicable international standards. Furthermore, the Commission is of the view that it is necessary to “amend the Criminal Code of the National Police, so as to clarify the guidelines on application of special jurisdiction and ordinary jurisdiction; and adequately regulate the use of firearms by the Armed Forces and National Police”. The representatives consider appropriate for the Court to order the State to carry out all necessary legal reforms to give way to the jurisdictional unity and that as such, every violation of human rights would be judged in the regular jurisdiction and the military tribunals would only have jurisdiction over offences of a strictly military nature and which affect the institution. They specifically request that the National Security Law be amended so that military tribunals do not immediately have jurisdiction over facts taking place during states of emergency, and to ensure under all circumstances that such tribunals do not have jurisdiction to judge civilians. 153. The Court reminds that the State must prevent further violations of human rights such as the ones committed in the instant case and it must therefore adopt all legal, administrative and other measures necessary to prevent further occurrence of similar facts, pursuant to its obligations to prevent and guarantee the fundamental rights protected under the American Convention. 154. Especially, the State must adapt its domestic legislation on states of emergency and suspension of guarantees, and in particular the provisions of its National Security Law, so as to bring it in line with the American Convention. More specifically, the State must ensure the adequacy of its legislation so that military jurisdiction could not assume the competences of the common jurisdiction, as set forth in the present Judgment (supra paras. 53-68). e) Education in human rights 155. The Court takes note of the intention of the State “to run a process of prevention, training and diffusion of a public policy on education to human rights within the public sector, proceeding which is actually in the process of being implemented through a ‘Handbook on Proceedings for the Public Sector’; [i]n order to fulfill its obligations assumed internationally and even more, with the aim to constitute an initiative at the regional level on the respect, protection and guarantee of human rights.” 156. The Court views positively such initiative and considers it is a form of reparation. As such, the violations imputable to the State in the instant case have been committed both by members of the security forces and by the members of the Judicial, in violation of the imperative norms of International Law. 157. The Court has indicated123 that in order to adequately ensure the right to life and humane treatment, embers of security forces must receive proper training and education, with a particular emphasis on the use of force and states of emergency. As such, the State shall implement, within a reasonable time, permanent programs of education in human rights for members of the Military Forces and National Police, in all hierarchical levels. 123 Cf. Case of the Caracazo. Reparations, supra note 71, para. 127; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 239, and of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 147.