110 of continuing education, training should be offered for a considerable time in order to achieve its objectives. 492 Likewise, and in light of its case law, 493 the Court notes that training with a gender perspective entails not only a process of learning the norms, but must also teach all officials to recognize the existence of discrimination against women, and the impact on women of stereotyped ideas and assessments in relation to the scope and content of human rights. 327. Consequently, the Court establishes that the State, within a reasonable time, must incorporate into the permanent education and training programs and courses for those in charge of criminal investigations and judicial proceedings, the standards established in paragraphs 237 to 242, 248, 249, 251, 252, 255, 256, 258, 260, 266, 268 and 278 of this Judgment concerning: (i) a gender perspective for due diligence in conducting preliminary investigations and judicial proceedings in relation to gender-based discrimination and violence against women, in particular acts of violence and rape, and (ii) the elimination of gender stereotypes. C.3.3. Measures for just reparation to all women victims of the generalized and aberrant practice of sexual violence and rape during the conflict 328. The representatives explained that, on July 28, 2005, by Law No. 28,592, the State had established a Comprehensive Reparations Plan (PIR) to implement actions of reparation, justice and restitution for victims of gross human rights violations during the conflict in Peru. The law’s implementing regulations were adopted on July 6, 2006. According to the representatives, individuals who belonged to subversive organizations, as well as those who had already received reparations under other State mechanisms were excluded from the PIR. In this regard, they affirmed that women subversive should be tried and punished for the crimes they committed during the conflict; however, their guilt would not justify failing to make reparation for the sexual violence suffered during their detention. Hence, they asked the Court to order the State to take the necessary steps to ensure that all victims of human rights violations during the Peruvian conflict may receive just reparation. The Commission did not comment in this regard. 329. The State indicated that article 4 of Law No. 28,592, creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan (PIR), established that victims who are not included in the PIR and who claim that they have a right to reparation retain their right to have recourse to the courts. On this point, it clarified that, although they are excluded from the PIR, those convicted of terrorism have other mechanisms that are equally satisfactory to obtain reparation, because they may exercise their right to resort to the courts; hence, Law No. 28,592 is not discriminatory in any way. In addition, it argued that “the Truth Commission was clear when it indicated that it was necessary to establish a program of reparations, and it is true that individuals prosecuted for terrorism do not have access to this reparations program, which includes financial reparations, because the individual convicted of terrorism is already indebted to the State as regards civil reparation.” 330. The Court recalls that the reparations it orders must have a causal nexus with the violations declared in the judgment (supra para. 301). Since the exclusion of those convicted parties: (i): Affidavit made on March 26, 2014, by Ana María Alejandra Mendieta Trefogli (merits file, folios 1038 to 1094); (ii) Affidavit made on March 26, 2014, by Moisés Valdemar Ponce Malaver (merits file, folios 1018 to 1036); (iii) Report No. 005-2012-MIMP-PNCVFS-YNN of the Ministry for Women and Vulnerable Populations, with information on the design of training sessions for the Judicial Districts of Lima and North Lima, which have been extended to other districts (evidence file, folio 6195); (iv) Report No. 021-2012-MIMP-PNCVFS-UGDS-JMR of the Ministry for Women and Vulnerable Populations, of August 29, 2012, with information on human rights education programs (evidence file, folio 6255), and (v) Note No. 80-2012-MINDEF/pp of the Ministry of Defense with information on the implementation of permanent human rights education programs within the Armed Forces (evidence file, folio 6285). 492 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 251, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 540. 493 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 540.