that the Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. 244 However, considering the circumstances of the case sub judice, and having regard to the effects on the victims, as well as the non-material and non-pecuniary consequences arising from the violations of the Convention declared to their detriment, the Court deems it appropriate to order measures of satisfaction, restitution and guarantees of non-repetition. B. Measures of satisfaction, restitution and guarantees of non-repetition 1. Measures of satisfaction: publication of the Judgment Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 206. As measures of satisfaction the representatives requested that “[t]he Ecuadorian State […] publicly acknowledge its international responsibility by publishing the main paragraphs of the Judgment on Merits in the newspapers with the widest national circulation [and], given that some judges live in Guayaquil, Cuenca and Quito [they requested] their publication in the national newspapers with widest local circulation, namely in the daily newspapers El Universal in Guayaquil, El Comercio in Quito and El Mercurio in Cuenca.” They also requested that “the Judgment [be] published in the Official Record” and that it be made “available on the official web sites of the Judiciary, the Attorney General’s Office and the Constitutional Court.” 207. Regarding the request to publish the most important sections of the Judgment in three national newspapers, the State argued that this request is beyond the scope of the Inter-American Court, and that if the State should be ordered to issue a publication it would be published in the Official Record and in a newspaper with national circulation. Considerations of the Court 208. The Court orders, as it has on previous occasions, that the State publish, within a period of six months as of notification of this Judgment: a) the official summary of the Judgment delivered by the Court, once only in the Official Gazette of Ecuador; b) the official summary of this Judgment issued by the Court, once only, in a newspaper with wide national circulation and c) make available the entire Judgment for one year, on the Judiciary’s official web site. 2. Measures of compensation Arguments of the Commission and of the Parties 209. The Commission requested that the Court “[r]einstate the victims, if they so wish, in the judiciary in a position similar to the one they had held, with the same salary, social benefits and rank that they would have today, had they not been dismissed. If for wellfounded reasons reinstatement is not possible, the State shall pay reasonable compensation to the victims or their successors.” During the public hearing, the Commission stated that “precisely recognizing the legal and institutional difficulties in providing possible redress in a case of this nature, it formulated the recommendation in alternative terms, either reinstatement in their positions or else alternative compensation; however it is important to clarify that such alternative compensation is specifically the alternative to reinstatement and does not replace the possible compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages.” 244 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 355. 60