-42perpetrator was convicted by the judicial authorities and compensation was fully paid. The Commission did not refer to this measure of reparation. Considerations of the Court 181. In the present case, the Court did not find the State internationally responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity of the family members of the victims and, therefore, it is not appropriate to order the measure requested. D.2. Public act of recognition of responsibility 182. The representatives requested the holding of an act of recognition of international responsibility and a public apology, which would give “special attention to the situation of the disproportionate use of public force, as a regretful situation that led to serious violations of human rights.” The State and the Commission did not refer to this measure of reparation. Considerations of the Court 183. The Court does not deem it necessary to order the measure requested by the representatives since it considers that the delivery of this Judgment and the reparations ordered are sufficient and adequate. D.3. Guarantees of non-repetition 184. The Commission requested, generally, that the State strengthen its capacity to investigate, with due diligence and in a timely fashion, any use of lethal force by members of the Armed Forces. It also asked that the Court order the State to adopt the necessary measures to avoid the occurrence of similar situations, especially by implementing human rights programs in the Armed Forces training schools. The representatives requested that the Court “order the State to adapt its domestic order on the use of force to the international standards developed on the matter by this international tribune.” They added, inter alia, that although the Court “in other cases concerning Peru has ordered human rights courses for members of the Armed Forces and the police […], it has not done so specifically regarding training those agents in the use of public force in accordance with the international standards on the matter.” 185. For its part, the State indicated, with respect to the Commission’s recommendation on strengthening the capacity to investigate, that such recommendation “had been complied with by the investigations initiated by the Public Ministry and the Judicial Branch, whereby the facts of the present case were clarified and those responsible were punished.” With respect to adapting its domestic laws on the use of force, the State referred to its arguments on the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention (supra para. 150). The State also reported on “the different specialized training courses on the International Law of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law sponsored by the Military-Policial Jurisdiction and the Ministries of Defense and Interior” and underscored that they contained “up-to-date information and were specifically related to facts similar to this case.” In addition, it specified that it had incorporated the topic of human rights “at all levels of training, specialization and advanced courses of the educational system of the police.” Considerations of the Court 186. The Court notes that, with respect to the request to order human rights training for the members of the Armed Forces, the State provided detailed information on programs that