30 argued that the victim should direct her other petitions to the School of Dramatic Arts and the Universidad de San Martín de Porres, which would evaluate the merit of her request. It added that Peruvian law did not guarantee civil servants a job until retirement. 113. It is the view of this Court that the State does have an obligation to make every effort within its power to have the victim reinstated in the teaching positions she held in public institutions at the time of her detention. Her salaries and other benefits should be equal to the full amount she was receiving for teaching in the public and private sectors at the time of her detention, adjusted to its value as of the date of this Judgment. The Court has had before it a resolution ordering the victim’s reinstatement in the teaching service, so that Peru has already partially complied with this obligation. 114. The Court further considers that the State is under the obligation to re-enter the victim’s name on the proper retirement records, retroactive to the date on which she was removed from those records, and to ensure that she enjoys the same retirement rights to which she was entitled prior to her detention. 115. However, judging from the evidence, particularly the medical reports on the victim’s health (supra 75 and 76) and the victim’s own statement, circumstances are such that, for the present, it would be difficult for her to fully re-immerse herself in her former jobs. 116. The State, therefore, has an obligation to do everything necessary to ensure that the victim receives her salaries, social security and employment benefits as of the date of issuance of this Judgment and until such time as she is able to effectively re-join the teaching service. The Court believes the prudent course of action would be to use the domestic mechanisms that apply in cases of employment disability or any other suitable means that will ensure that this obligation is honored. 117. The Court believes that strictly speaking, the victim’s claims regarding her career prospects and promotion would not be measures of restitution; it will, therefore, examine them when it evaluates the damages the victim is claiming to her “life plan” [proyecto de vida] (infra 144 et seq). * * * 118. In their reparations briefs, both the victim and the Commission petitioned the Court to order Peru to take the measures necessary to expunge the victim’s criminal, court and prison records. 119. The Commission also petitioned the Court to instruct Peru to vacate the proceedings and judgments delivered in the regular courts, provide the victim with the proper court records, and report the nullification of the proceedings and the victim’s release in the “El Peruano” official journal wherein the decisions of the judicial branch of government are reported. 120. Peru argued that the petitions were irrelevant and immaterial and constituted interference in the jurisdiction of Peruvian authorities, inasmuch as the September 17, 1997 Judgment had confined itself to ordering release of the victim, who now