administrative sanctions procedures expire nine months from the date of notification of proceedings, and the procedure is closed; and, (c) the representative noted that the National Board of Justice has a double standard for sanctions against judges. A.2. Considerations of the Court 18. In paragraphs 204, 205 y 206 of the judgment, referring to the guarantees of nonrepetition it requested, the Court established the following: 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 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. 19. Based on the above considerations, this Court established the following in operative paragraph 10: 10. The State shall adapt, within a reasonable timeframe, its domestic legal system to the parameters established in this judgment, pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 203 to 206 of this judgment. 20. Having studied the request submitted by the State, this Court recalls that the parties must consider the judgment as a whole and each paragraph in light of the rest rather than interpreting paragraphs in isolation.13 With that in mind, the Court notes that the meaning and scope of the adaptation of the legal system ordered as a guarantee of non-repetition is evident from the text of the paragraphs transcribed, in conformity with paragraphs 203 and 205 and paragraphs 132 and 133 of the judgment. does not apply in the case of the appeals procedure. When, by law, the bodies concerned have more time to rule on the expiry period, the expiry period established under this act shall apply. [...]”. Cf. General Administrative Procedure Act, published on April 11, 2001, in the official state newspaper El Peruano. 13 Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Request for interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2017. Serie C No. 335, para. 26, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 33. 6