- 94 303. The Court establishes, as it has in other cases,459 that the State must publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the official summary of the judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the official gazette; (b) the official summary of the judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and (c) the judgment in its entirety, available for one year on an official website. C.3) Other measures requested 304. The Commission also asked the Court to require the State to “[m]ake the necessary amendments to the law to ensure that disciplinary proceedings against judges are conducted by competent authorities with sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality; [and to] “ensure that the grounds for disciplinary action against judges and the applicable sanctions are compatible with the principle of legality.” 305. Meanwhile, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to: (i) “file the corresponding criminal, civil or administrative charges against those responsible for the facts on which this case is based”; (ii) organize a public act to acknowledge international responsibility and make a public apology; (iii) implement a permanent training program for recently appointed agents of justice to provide basic information on judicial independence, and respect for the free and full exercise of their rights and obligations as judicial officials, and (iv) that the Court “reiterate to the State its obligation implement a public policy (for the protection of human rights defenders] and require that this policy include sufficient guarantees to protect the exercise of the human right to defend human rights.” 306. They also asked the Court to order the State to take the necessary measures to guarantee a disciplinary regime for judges that met the pertinent international standards. They indicated that, under the current regime, the provisions on the prohibitions and incompatibilities relating to judicial posts and the disciplinary regime “are insufficiently clear and specific, [because] the substantive content of the articles in force is almost the same as the articles that were annulled.” In addition, they indicated that the actual law merely refers to three general situations that can result in the suspension of judicial employees and officials, as well as some general prohibitions for judges and justices. They also indicated that the section corresponding to the disciplinary responsibility of officials and judges merely refers to the appeal for reconsideration that may be filed against the decision issued in the disciplinary proceeding, while the substantiation of the proceeding, the violations and the corresponding sanctions are “delegated to the regulations governing the Law on the Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service to be drawn up and approved by that body, which has not happened to date.” In addition, the representatives argued that some norms still subsist that were not expressly annulled; namely, those established in the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts and the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees. 307. Regarding this measure, the Court notes that, in Honduras, the disciplinary regime applied to the presumed victims has been amended. It recalls, however, that it is not incumbent on the Court to review, in the abstract, norms that were not applied or that did not have any impact on the violations declared in a specific case.460 In the instant case, the new disciplinary regime was not applied to the victims, and there is no evidence that its possible applicable could have a direct 459 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 162. 460 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 50, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2015. Series C No. 287, para. 64.