86 c) To order the State to abstain from making excessive use of measures that restrict rights and that are applied to guarantee presence at a trial; to ensure that they are “proportionate and appropriate;” to limit, insofar as possible, the use of restrictive measures to guarantee presence at a trial, and to implement mechanisms that ensure that rights are not endangered for an indefinite or over-long period, taking into account the legal interest that such measures are designed to protect, the seriousness of the offense for which an action has been filed, and the personal situation of the defendant; d) To order the State to ensure that the restrictive measures applied to guarantee presence at a trial do not become “an anticipated punishment, which is not established by law;” e) To order the State to make a public apology for the human rights violations which it perpetrated and to publish the judgment handed down by the Court. These are very appropriate measures to make reparation to Mr. Canese; they also provide reparation to Paraguayan society as a whole; f) Regarding compensation for pecuniary damage, to establish an amount in fairness “for the violations endured during eight years, as of the judgment of first instance, taking into account the possible loss of earnings represented by the restriction of his right to leave the country;” g) Regarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage, to establish an amount in fairness, which takes into consideration “the situation of someone subjected to a proceeding during eight years, to measures restricting his freedom of movement for the same period, and to a permanent feeling of vulnerability as a result of a criminal conviction for exercising a right,” which have caused Mr. Canese “extreme pain and suffering;” and h) In relation to costs, to order the State to pay the costs incurred at the national level by processing the legal actions filed by the alleged victim, and also those incurred at the international level by processing the case before the Commission and the Court. Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victim 189. The representatives of the alleged victim stated that reparation should be made to Ricardo Canese, the person directly prejudiced by the acts that violated his rights, and indicated to the Court that: a) The State’s argument concerning the alleged reparation to Mr. Canese, owing to the decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on December 11, 2002, that absolved him of the offense of slander, constitutes “a partial and belated reparation” and does not guarantee “the non-repetition of the facts denounced;” b) According to Paraguayan legislation, the judgments of the Supreme Court do not have a binding effect for judges, and do not have an effect erga omnes; therefore, there is no certainty that “the same legal doctrine will apply in a similar case.” The judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay of December 11, 2002, cannot guarantee that no one “will be