B.1. Measure of satisfaction B.1.1. Publication of the judgment 116. The representatives asked that the State publish: (i) the entire judgment on the official website of the national Judiciary, on the website of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and on the website of the national Ministry of Security for at least one year, and (ii) the official summary of the judgment in three major national newspapers. Neither the Commission nor the State commented on this request. 117. The Court establishes, as it has in other cases, 145 that the State must publish, within six months of notification of this judgment, in an appropriate and legible font: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette; (b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and (c) this judgment in its entirety, to be available for one year, on the official website of the national Judiciary. The State must inform this Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, irrespective of the one-year time frame for presenting its first report established in the twelfth operative paragraph of this judgment. B.2. Guarantees of non-repetition B.2.1. Adaptation of the law on stop and search 118. The Commission asked that the State ensure that the legislation that regulates the authority to stop and search people in public places on the basis of suspicion of the perpetration of an offense is based on objective reasons and includes requirements that these reasons be justified in each case. Also, it noted the State’s assertion that a new Federal Code of Criminal Procedure had been promulgated that “will gradually replace the National Criminal Procedural Code.” In this regard, the Commission indicated that, currently, the National Criminal Procedural Code and also Law 23,950, which were applied in this case, remained in force, and therefore asked the Court to order the State to adopt amendments to the law that were adapted to the relevant standards of the Court. 119. The representatives indicated that the legislation on stop and search without a court order currently in force is essentially the same as that which existed at the time of the facts, because the amendments made to the regulations do not meet international human rights standards as they maintain loose and subjective criteria, liable to maximize the discretionality and arbitrariness of law enforcement personnel. They asked the Court to order the State to adapt the current legislation; in particular, to derogate Law No. 23,950, to amend articles 184.5, 230, 230 bis and 284 of the National Criminal Procedural Code, and to consider that future legislation on this matter must indicate the objective circumstances that justify a detention and/or a search; that these must precede the procedure and have a restrictive interpretation, placing the burden on law enforcement personnel to provide a detailed written description on the grounds and circumstances that gave rise to the detention and/or search in their report on the procedure. The representatives also asked that, to ensure the effectiveness of the legislative amendments, the Court order the State to issue regulatory protocols for the actions of law enforcement personnel in public places to be adopted by presidential decree rather than by ministerial decisions which were unreliable and of a lower rank. Lastly, they asked the Court to order the State to adopt measures to harmonize the Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 79, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 63. 145 37