issued by the Court in this case, within six months of this Judgment being notified to the Mexican State.” Likewise, it stated that, “a public version of the Judgment will be published on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Relations for a period of one year.” 87. The Court endorses the aforementioned measures intended to disseminate this Judgment under the terms agreed by the parties. E.2) Guarantees of non-repetition E.2.a) Organization of a seminar 88. In the section entitled “guarantees of non-repetition” of the friendly settlement agreement, the State “agree[d] to organize a seminar with experts to discuss the implementation of the doctrine of procedural immediacy adopted by the Supreme Court of Justice and to present the conclusions of that event to the various officials responsible for public defense services and the administration and implementation of justice.” It stipulated that the seminar “shall be held within twelve months of the notification of [this] judgment.” 89. The Court endorses this measure under the terms agreed by the parties. E.2.b) Publication of the Judgment of the direct amparo action 778/2012 90. The section entitled “guarantees of non-repetition” of the friendly settlement agreement stipulates that, “[c]onsidering the importance of the judgment in the direct amparo action 778/2012 for the proceedings of this case, [and that …] this decision exemplifies the willingness of the Mexican courts to implement the constitutional reform published in the Federation’s Official Gazette on June 10, 2011, as well as international human rights standards and conventionality control, the Mexican State undertakes to publish, once only, in the Official Gazette of the Federation and in another newspaper with wide national circulation, the official summary of said judgment, with the prior agreement of the victims and their representatives, within six months of notification of [this] Judgment.” In addition, the State “agree[d] to call on the Supreme Court of Justice to publish the public version of this judgment on its website for a period of one year,” and in the event of it “not being published [by the Supreme Court], it shall be published on the website of the federal agency agreed by the parties.” 91. The Court appreciates the efforts made by the judicial authorities to resolve the victim’s application for amparo (supra para. 60) in 2013. However, it also notes that it has taken fifteen years and ten months since the violations of the human rights of Messrs. García Cruz y Sánchez Silvestre occurred for the domestic court to carry out the required review and protect the victims’ rights. The Court ratifies the aforementioned measure of reparation under the terms agreed by the parties and considers that it will serve to disseminate an exemplary domestic legal decision on the exercise of conventionality control by national judges and courts. E.2.c) Training for “judicial officials” 92. In the section entitled “guarantees of non-repetition” of the friendly settlement agreement, the State “agree[d] to continue offering training to public officials responsible for the public defense and the administration and implementation of justice under the highest international standards in order to identify, respond, prevent, report and punish the use of torture techniques.” Likewise the State expressed its commitment to present, “within the monitoring compliance process before the Court […,] detailed information on the contents and 26