facts no longer exists. Furthermore, the State indicated that the Prosecutor General had decided to convert the First, Second and Third Provincial Criminal Prosecution Offices into the First Corporative Provincial Prosecution Office of Huamanga, so that the entity in which the victim was employed no longer exists, and this made his reinstatement impossible. It added that providing compensation to the victim was not admissible either because the Public Prosecution Service, when ordering the termination of the temporal designation, acted within its legal powers and attributes, so that “it ha[d] not harmed the person of Julio Casa Nina.” 132. With regard to the State’s arguments, the Court notes that, by a resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary of February 9, 2005, an official was appointed to assume, as the incumbent, the post occupied by Mr. Casa Nina at the time his designation ended. 127 This situation reveals that, in this specific case, it is not viable to order the victim’s reinstatement as requested. Accordingly, in light of the violations declared in this judgment, the State must pay Julio Casa Nina compensation, which this Court establishes, in equity, as US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars). C. Measures of satisfaction 133. Even though the parties and the Commission did not submit any specific requests with regard to measures of satisfaction, the Court, as it has in other cases,128 establishes that the State must publish, within six months of notification of this judgment, in a legible and appropriate font: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette, and (b) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on the official website of the Public Prosecution Service. The State must inform this Court immediately when it has made each of these publications, regardless of the one-year time frame for presenting its first report established in the tenth operative paragraph of this judgment. D. Guarantees of non-repetition 134. The Commission requested that the Court order measures of non-repetition that included the necessary measures: (a) “ to prevent similar events from taking place in the future; in particular, to ensure application of the rules of due process in the context of procedures for the dismissal or removal of prosecutors, regardless of whether or not they are provisional,” and (b) “so that domestic law and relevant practice conform to clear criteria and ensure guarantees in the appointment, tenure and removal of prosecutors, pursuant to the criteria set forth in the [Merits] Report.” Mr. Casa Nina’s representative did not submit requests in this regard. 135. The State argued that it applied the rules of due process in the procedures for the dismissal and removal of prosecutors, while reiterating that this case was not related to a dismissal or removal, but rather to the termination of a designation based on the needs for the service. It indicated that, in 2019, the National Authority for the Control of the Public Prosecution Service was created by Law No. 30944, and its functions include supervision of the designation of non-career provisional prosecutors, which must be made through a public competitive selection procedure. It added that this authority was currently being set up and brought into operation so that, opportunely, it would provide updated information on this matter. Cf. Resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary of February 9, 2005 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 24 to the answering brief, folio 997). 127 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Almeida v. Argentina, supra, para. 65. 128 36