addition, based on the conclusions of Chapter IX of this Judgment, the Court establishes that the State should immediately revoke the precautionary measure of injunction against the sale or encumbrance of property imposed on Messrs. Mémoli. The State must provide a report on compliance with this measure within three months of notification of this Judgment. B.2) Measure of satisfaction: publication and dissemination of the Judgment 207. Even though the publication of this Judgment has not been requested, as it has decided in other cases, 339 this Court establishes 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, and (b) the Judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on an official website. B.3) Guarantee of non-repetition 208. The Commission asked that “the necessary measures [be adopted] to prevent the repetition of similar situations with regard to the disproportionate duration of civil proceedings and injunctive measures under the conditions noted.” The representatives asked that the State “find ways to ensure that due process of law is respected in the different jurisdictions, which will guarantee fairness and equality between the parties in a [proceeding, which should be decided within] a reasonable time.” The State indicated that the Commission’s recommendations with regard to the civil case “stem from an erroneous assessment of the judicial procedure established by Argentina’s legal system,” and argued that “its request regarding the ‘necessary measures’ to decide the case and prevent the repetition of similar situations is very imprecise.” In addition, it indicated that the Argentine legal system “regulates the proceeding for damages based on the dispositive principle,” and that the legal “instruments [to control and limit the scope of a precautionary measure] have been used incorrectly by the presumed victims.” 209. This Court emphasizes that neither the Commission nor the representatives provided arguments or information revealing that the regulation of the civil proceeding applied in this case had normative shortcomings as regards the disputes in this case. Consequently, it is not necessary to order a measure of reparation in this regard. C. Compensation C.1) Pecuniary damage 210. The Commission asked the Court to compensate Messrs. Mémoli “for all pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered by Carlos and Pablo Carlos Mémoli as a result of the violations established [in this case].” 211. The representatives asked that the Court order the State “to provide compensation for the material losses suffered.” In this regard, they asked that the State be ordered to pay Pablo Mémoli, as consequential damage, the sum of US$44,362.00 (forty-four thousand three hundred and sixty-two United States dollars) “for the expenses incurred before the domestic and the inter-American systems to date,” as well as for specific amounts paid as part of the sentence or to have access to justice, in the domestic proceedings. In addition, they asked that the State be ordered to pay Pablo Mémoli the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand 339 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 189. 76