113 made subject of criminal sanction to the detriment of his professional standing;” and c) The Court should order the State “to modify completely and definitely the provisions of Decree-Law No. 25.475 which the Constitutional Court of Peru did not declare to be unconstitutional, which provisions have remained in force by the passing of the pertinent Legislative Degrees, and the pertinent provisions of the Criminal Code.” Arguments of the representatives 278. As regards the determination of representatives pointed out the following: the other forms of reparation, the a) The State should “[c]ease and put an end to [the] violations of the alleged victims’ human rights, specified both in the application filed by the Commission and in this Judgment, with the exception of the request made by the Commission to ‘guarantee an new trial in compliance with the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia; in this respect, the [alleged] victims request[ed] that the State guarantee that at the second proceedings at […] which they were be[ing] tried, the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia be duly observ[ed] and that their rights to a due process and to procedural equality between the parties be protect[ed]. If the State does not provide guarantees or does not comply with them, the State has lost the right to prosecute us by bringing us to trial for the third time;” b) “Since no danger could be proven to exist in order to support the request that [Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas] […] be kept in custody, it is requested that an order be issued for [his] release […] so that [he] may be set free after being held in custody for thirteen years;” c) That the State be ordered to “make a public acknowledgement of international responsibility and vindication of [the alleged victims] and their next of kin;” d) That the State be ordered “to publish in the Official Gazette and in any other nationwide newspaper and to transmit on the State television channel, for a single time, the pertinent excerpts of the judgment that the Court may render […] in the instant case;” e) That the State be ordered “to conduct an investigation and to punish those responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined by the Convention;” f) That the State be ordered “to adopt such measures as may be necessary to amend Decree-Law 25.475 so that it is rendered compatible with the American Convention;”