legislative or other measures necessary to give effect to the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. 178 204. From the information provided by the State, it is indicated that, after the events of this case, Peru has adopted various regulations to regulate the evaluation and ratification procedure that is in force, through the constitutional reform on the establishment and functions of the National Council of the Judiciary, the Organic Law of the JNJ and the Regulation of the Comprehensive Evaluation and Ratification Process of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service through Resolution No. 260-2020-JNJ of December 9, 2020 (supra para. 80). 205. The Court notes that, according to the allegations of the parties, the victims' own statements, as well as the regulations in force, the prohibition that non-ratified magistrates may re-enter the Judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service still remains, despite the fact that the State has repeatedly indicated that the Constitutional Court in its judgment of January 8, 2006 179 indicated that the right of non-ratified magistrates to re-apply to the Judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service cannot be prevented in any way, since the fact of not having been ratified should not be an impediment to re-enter the judicial profession. 206. In light of the foregoing, the Court considers it necessary for the State to adopt legislative or other measures to adapt its domestic legal system to the provisions of the American Convention, in accordance with the ruling in this judgment in relation to the reinstatement of the non-ratified magistrates to the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution Service and to the possibility of appealing decisions determining the non-ratification of a magistrate. This implies that the State must adopt said measures within a reasonable period of time. Regardless of the reforms that the State must introduce, while the measures are not adopted the State authorities are under the obligation to exercise ex officio conventionality control between domestic law and the American Convention, within the framework of their respective competencies and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the domestic authorities must take into account not only the treaty, but also its interpretation by the Inter-American Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Convention. D. Additional Measures 207. Furthermore, the representatives of Messrs. Cuya and Valenzuela requested that the State hold a public redress ceremony acknowledging international responsibility and making a public apology. In addition, Mr. Valenzuela’s representatives requested that the State: (a) prepare and publish a brochure that summarizes the Court decision; (b) that the State send an official letter to the alleged victim acknowledging the violations committed to his rights and offering a public apology for them, and (c) implement a permanent training program for newly admitted justice officials providing fundamental information on judicial independence, as well as on the free and full exercise of their duties and rights as judicial officials. Regarding the performance of a public act, the State argued that it does not oppose the holding of said act, provided that the Court considers that the other measures of reparation ordered are not sufficient and expressly indicates why it should depart from the criteria already developed by the Court. In terms of training, training related to Human Rights and case law related to international standards in the 178 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 50, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2021. Series C No. 430, para. 142. 179 The State referred to the Constitutional Court judgment of January 8, 2006, in File No. 1333-2006-PA/TC and added to said judgment that “[t]he non-ratification does not imply a sanction, therefore the possibility of applying the prohibition to re-enter the judicial career is incongruous regarding the very nature of the institution, since, […], this does not constitute a sanction.” In addition, in the same sense, the State mentioned the Judgment of January 27, 2003 of the Constitutional Court, in File No. 1941-2002-PA/TC, and the Judgment of August 12, 2005 of the Constitutional Court, in File No. 3361-2004-PA/TC. 51