146. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to publish the official summary of the Judgment "in the Official Gazette" and the complete Judgment "on the website of the National Police and the Ministry of Government." 147. This Court, as it has done in other cases,120 orders the State to publish, within a period of six months from the notification of this judgment, the following, in legible and appropriate font size: (a) the official summary of this judgment, prepared by the Court, one time only, in the Official Gazette; (b) the official summary of the judgment, prepared by the Court, one time only, in a widely circulated national newspaper, in legible and appropriate font size; and (c) this judgment in its entirety, available for a period of one year, on the official website of the Ministry of Government, in a way that is accessible to the public and from the homepage of the website. The State must inform this Court immediately once it proceeds to make each of the ordered publications, regardless of the one-year term it has to submit its initial report, as stated in operative paragraph 9 of this judgment. D. Other measures requested 148. The Commission ordered that the State "[a]dapt domestic legislation to ensure that disciplinary proceedings against members of the National Police of Ecuador comply with all due process guarantees and the principle of legality." Specifically, they requested that the State "take measures to ensure that the processes guarantee the right to prior and detailed communication of the charges, the right to defense with sufficient time, the principle of presumption of innocence, and the right to appeal the judgment." 149. The representative requested that the State be ordered to "take the necessary measures to prevent similar events from occurring in the future, especially [by] applying due process rules in disciplinary proceedings carried out within the security forces." Additionally, they requested that the State be ordered to "publicly apologize to the [alleged] victim and commit to taking actions to ensure that justice administrators strictly apply the laws, safeguarding the rights of the victims." 150. The State argued that the requirements related to non-repetition guarantees are fully developed in Ecuador, and therefore the Court could not make a ruling on the matter. The State pointed out that the 2008 Constitution, in Article 76, numbers 3 and 7, recognizes the principles of legality and the guarantees of the right to defense, respectively. It also argued that the Organic Code of Citizen Security and Public Order Entities guarantees respect for due process in disciplinary proceedings applicable to personnel of citizen security and public order entities, including mechanisms to ensure the right to appeal, in accordance with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. Moreover, the mentioned Code establishes administrative disciplinary offenses, in accordance with the requirement of the principle of legality. 151. In this judgment, the Court declared a violation of Article 8.2(h) in relation to Article 2 of the Convention due to the normative confusion that existed at the time the events occurred regarding the possibility to appeal the decisions adopted by the Disciplinary Court (supra para. 91). However, that legislation was repealed and the Court takes note of the information provided by the State indicating that the Organic Code of Citizen Security and Public Order Entities guarantees the right to appeal pursuant to Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. Furthermore, in this Judgment, the Court did not declare a violation of the principle of legality. In view of the above, the Court does not consider it necessary to grant the reparations Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 108. 120