120. The State pointed out that acts of recognition of international responsibility and public apologies are not necessarily measures of satisfaction in themselves in all cases, because the Judgment of the Court itself constitutes a form of reparation. 121. The Court orders, as it has done in other cases,87 that the State publish, within six months from the notification of this Judgment, in a legible and adequate font size, the following: a) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once only, in the Official Gazette, and b) this Judgment in its entirety, available for a period of one year, on the official website of the Judiciary. The State must immediately inform this Court once it proceeds to make each of the publications ordered, regardless of the period of one year to present its first report, provided for in operative paragraph 10 of this Judgment. The Court considers that the issuance of this judgment and the order for the publication of its summary in the Official Gazette and of the Judgment on the website of the Judicial Power, are sufficient measures of satisfaction in this case, so it will not order the execution of an act of redress.88 D. Other measures requested 122. The Commission requested the necessary non-repetition measures be ordered to ensure that the ratification processes of judicial officers, in law and in practice: i) to duly regulate offenses committed that give rise to the non-ratification of a judicial officer based on objective criteria and in a proportional manner; ii) allow the officer subject to the process to defend themself against the specific charges made against them in the light of objective criteria, as well as access to an effective remedy to amend possible violations of due process. 123. The State indicated that, to date, ratification of judicial clerks is not regulated under Peruvian law. In this respect, it reported that Article 154 of the Political Constitution of Peru refers to the process of ratification of judges and prosecutors by the National Board of Justice, and that these are the only officers to whom this is currently applied. It indicated that, due to the fact that to date there are no ratification processes applicable to court personnel, it is not possible for events such as those in this case to be repeated. In relation to judicial officers, it pointed out that the "Standards for the Evaluation of Performance of Workers in the Judicial Power" Directive is currently in force, which was approved on September 1, 2020. The Directive does not constitute a mechanism for dismissal, but to improve the skills and qualifications of Judicial employees. For this purpose it conducts an annual performance evaluation, in confidence, which seeks to improve the work performance of the judicial employee evaluated, and develop their potential, thereby improving the quality of the service. The State also reported that it has established an administrative disciplinary procedure that respects all guarantees of due process, so that, if a judicial employee incurs an offense outlined in the norm, the employee has the benefit of all guarantees to exercise his or her rights and conduct an adequate defense. 124. Due to the above and, in particular, considering that according to the information provided by the State and not disputed on the record, the norms on which the ratification process of Mrs. Moya Solís was based are not in force, the Court does not deem it pertinent to grant the measures requested by the Inter-American Commission. E. Compensation Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 133. 87 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Contentious Administrative Proceedings”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 250, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 154. 88 31