135. As it has in other cases, 98 the Court orders the State to publish, within six months of notification of this judgment and in a legible and appropriate font size: 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 wide circulation; and c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on an official website of the State, in a manner accessible to the public from a banner on the home page of the website. The State must inform this Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, irrespective of the oneyear timeframe for presenting its first report established in the eleventh operative paragraph of this judgment. 136. Furthermore, in order to redress the damage caused to the victims and prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future, the Court deems it necessary to order the State to hold a public act of recognition of international responsibility for the incidents in the instant case within one year of the date of notification of this judgment. The human rights violations declared in this judgment should be named in the ceremony. The act should take the form of a public ceremony in the presence of the victims declared herein, if they so desire, and high-level state officials. The date of the act, place where it will be held, and what it will include, should be determined by advance agreement with the victims and/or their representatives. In addition, in order to help raise awareness and thereby prevent and avoid a repetition of harmful acts such as those that occurred in this case, the Court orders the State to broadcast the ceremony over a free-to-air television channel with nationwide coverage. 99 E. Other measures requested 137. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to implement the following mechanisms aimed at non-repetition: a) permanent training programs for police officers on the use of force, including the use of lethal force, according to international standards; b) “measures to ensure effective accountability in criminal, disciplinary, and administrative courts,” in the face of the “alleged abuse of power by officers […] in charge of public security in the context of arrests such as the one that occurred in the present case”; and c) measures aimed at “strengthening the capacity to investigate, with all due diligence and pursuant to international standards … possible extrajudicial executions in the context of the use of lethal force by police officers, so that effective protocols exist to conduct such investigations.” 138. The State alleged that it “has implemented various measures to prevent the commission of new acts that could jeopardize the effective fulfillment of the human rights of all persons within the national jurisdiction.” It pointed out that the Ministry of the Interior had provided information about the permanent training programs for police personnel on human rights issues including the use of force and extrajudicial execution. 139. It added that the Court “should bear in mind the Constitutional Court of Ecuador’s international acceptance of inter-American law in its Judgment No. 33-20-IN/21 and consolidated cases of May 5, 2021,” which was based on the rulings in the Zambrano Vélez and García Ibarra cases, and in various reports of the Inter-American Commission “regarding the use of force by the National Police.” Actions of this kind “confirm the State’s position that it respects and guarantees human rights.” 140. The Court notes, as the State itself informed it, that the State has implemented various training programs for police officers on matters relating to national and international standards on the use of force and procedures applied to the use of force, forced disappearances, extrajudicial 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. 99 Cf. Inter alia, Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 445, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 109. 98 27