an injured party. 73 Therefore, this Court considers as injured parties in this case, Mr. Jorge Fontevecchia and Mr. Héctor D´Amico, given they were victims of a violation to their right to freedom of thought and expression (supra para. 75). As such, they shall be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by this Court in this chapter. B. Measures of restitution, satisfaction, and guarantees of nonrepetition 102. The international jurisprudence, and in particular the jurisprudence of the Court, has consistently ruled that a judgment is per se a form of reparation. 74 However, considering the circumstances of the case and the harm caused to the victims due to a violation of Article 13 of the American Convention to their detriment, the Court deems it appropriate to establish the following measures. 1. Measures of restitution 1.1. Revocation of the civil sentence 103. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to revoke the civil sentence imposed on Mr. Jorge Fontevecchia and Mr. Hector D'Amico and all the consequences resulting therefrom, including the reimbursement of sums paid. 104. Initially, representatives requested that the Court order the State to adopt measures necessary for the judge executing the judgment to attach to the court record the decision of the Inter-American Court and determine that the judgment passed was declared incompatible with human rights treaties. In its final arguments, the representatives reformulated their request asking the Court to order the State to take the necessary measures so that the ruling of the judiciary in this case lose any binding authority and any ability to be a source of legal effects of any kind. Finally, the representatives reported that, while some attempts could be made to satisfy this measure, there is no mechanism for implementing the decisions of the bodies of the international human rights system, nor is there clear jurisprudence in this regard. 105. This Court has determined that the judgment issued on September 25, 2001, by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation that affirmed the conviction imposed by the court of appeals, violated the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Jorge Fontevecchia and Mr. Hector D'Amico (supra paras. 54 to 75). Therefore, the Court orders that, according to its jurisprudence, 75 the State must revoke the decision in its entirety including, where appropriate, the reach it has on third parties, namely: a) the attribution of civil responsibility or Mr. Jorge Fontevecchia and Mr. Hector D'Amico, b) the order of payment of compensation, and interest and costs and court fees; such amounts must be compensated with the interests and actualizations that so 73 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 233, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. V. Uruguay, supra note 8, para. 242. 74 Cf. Case of El Amparo V. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Serie C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. V. Uruguay, supra note 8, para. 243. 75 Cf., inter alia, Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica, supra note 36, para. 195; Case of Tristán Donoso V. Panamá, supra note 35, para. 195, and Case of Kimel, supra note 38, para. 123. 32