respective damages.85 Therefore, the Court must analyze said concurrence to decide effectively and in accordance with the law. 113. Consequently, in accordance with the considerations set forth on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in this Judgment, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims of the Commission and the victim, as well as the observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair, in order to provide the measures aimed at repairing the damage caused.86 A. Injured Party 114. This Court considers, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, an injured party to be an individual declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers Mrs. Moya Solís to be an “injured party”, who, as the victim of the violations declared in Chapter VII of this Judgment, will be considered the beneficiary of the reparations that the Court orders. B. Restitution Measures 115. The Commission requested that Mrs. Moya Solís be reinstated, should this be her wish, in a position similar to the one she held in the Judiciary, with remuneration, social benefits, and rank comparable to those that would correspond to her today if she had not been removed. If, for wellfounded reasons, reinstatement is not possible, the Commission requested the payment of an alternative compensation. 116. The victim stated that she does not wish to be reinstated in the Judiciary and that she opts for the alternative of compensation. She also pointed out that she has not renounced her retirement, since she entered the judiciary by competitive exam in 1973 and is under the regime of Law 20530 “Cédula Viva” (“Living Decree”) pension regime. 117. The State informed the Court that during the stage of follow-up on compliance with the recommendations, it consulted the victim about her position regarding a possible reinstatement, to which Mrs. Moya Solís replied that it was not her wish to be reinstated to the Judiciary. 118. The Court notes that Mrs. Moya Solís does not wish to be reinstated to the Judiciary, for that reason it is not appropriate to order this restitution measure, without prejudice to the resolution in the section on compensatory damages (supra para. 127). C. Satisfaction Measures 119. The Commission made no statement specifically on this matter. The victim requested that, as a measure of satisfaction, a public act of redress and recognition of the State's responsibility be undertaken. Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 126. 85 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 220. 86 30