43 measure of reparation that would result appropriate and that would offer the citizen María Cristina Reverón Trujillo the possibility to reenter the exercise of judicial duties, would consist in her registration in the next competitive examination that would be convened, as long as the mentioned citizen states her will to participate in the tender and complies with the corresponding requirements.” 162. The Court observes that, according to the State, the reinstatement as a reparation is not possible because Mrs. Reverón Trujillo was acting as a provisional judge. That is, the State reiterates the argument made by the SPA when it did not order the reinstatement of the victim despite her arbitrary dismissal. In the previous chapters this Court determined that there was no justified reason that would have freed the State from reinstating Mrs. Reverón Trujillo to the judicial position occupied by her and to pay back the salaries she did not perceive, and that upon not doing so Venezuela violated the rights enshrined in Articles 25(1) and 23(1)(c) of the Convention. Thus, it would be wrong for the Tribunal to accept that restitution is not possible base on an argument that has already been declared unacceptable pursuant with the Convention. 163. Therefore, the Court declares that in this case the State must reinstate Mrs. Reverón Trujillo to a position similar to the one she previously occupied, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and rank equal to those that corresponded up to this date if she would have been reinstated. For this, the State has a six-term period as of the notification of this judgment. 164. The Court clarifies that the reinstatement shall be in the same provisional nature Mrs. Reverón Trujillo had when dismissed. This provisional nature, however, shall be understood in the sense the Court has set forth in this judgment. That is, it shall be subject to a cancellation clause, which would not be different to the appointment, according to the law, of the titular judge for the position or the dismissal, after a due process, for having committed a disciplinary offense. Once in her position, Judge Reverón Trujillo may not be subject to free removal, since this is not compatible with the principle of judicial independence. 165. If, based on well-founded reasons, different to the victim’s will, the State could not reinstate her to the Judicial Power in a six-month period as of the notification of the present Judgment, it shall pay her a compensation set by this Court in equity at US$ 60,000.00 (sixty thousand dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in the national currency, within a maximum period of eighteen months computed as of the notification of the present Judgment. 166. Regarding the salaries not perceived, the State asked the Court to take into consideration that on February 22, 2006 the Executive Office of the Magistracy proceeded to pay the victim US$ 13,385.08 in the concept of indemnification for her years of service as a provisional criminal judge, and that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo has “assets that guaranteed her an income and means of survival during the period referred to in the request for compensation,” by virtue of her participation as shareholder in several national and foreign corporations. 167. Mrs. Reverón stated in the public hearing that the indemnification for her years of service had been paid “very partially” since she had been paid off “without acknowledging her 12-year seniority in the Judicial Power, and it was only after 4 long years that she was completely paid off.”176 176 Cf. statement offered by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo at the public hearing held before the InterAmerican Court on January 23, 2009.