regardless of Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s discharge in 1993, based on his professional standing, curriculum vitae and the legal norms, the maximum time he could have remained in that institution would have been until December 1998,141 and therefore it considered his reinstatement would be inadmissible. 170. In consideration of the State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court decides that Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s dismissal as a military officer of the Ecuadorian Navy was the outcome of a procedure that violated his right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in the American Convention. Furthermore, in Decision No. 181-95-CP, issued on September 12, 1995, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees decided to: 1. Accept the complaint filed by [the plaintiffs]; declare unconstitutional the acts that determined their placement on leave and discharge and duly notify [the decision] to the President of the Republic, the Council of Crew Personnel, the Council of Senior Officers of the Navy, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the Commander General of the Navy.” 2. Grant a period of thirty days to reinstate [the plaintiffs] in the armed forces and restore all their rights, except those that have already been reinstated and restored.142 171. The ruling of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees has the status of res judicata and, as established in this judgment, Ecuador has not complied with said decision with respect to Mr. Grijalva. In accordance with that ruling, the State should have reinstated Mr. Grijalva in the armed forces within 30 days, and should have restored all his rights, such as the payment of salaries and other benefits that he ceased to receive as a Lieutenant Commander, from the time he was discharged from the armed forces to which he belonged, until the date on which he was reinstated in his military activities. 172. In cases of arbitrary dismissal, the Court has considered that the immediate reinstatement of the victim in the position he would have held had he not been arbitrarily dismissed from the institution is, in principle, the appropriate measure of reparation that best satisfies the full restitution which is required to repair the harm caused. However, this Court has also recognized that there are objective circumstances in which this may not be possible.143 173. In the instant case, since more than 28 years have elapsed since Mr. Grijalva Bueno was discharged from the Navy, the Court will not order his reinstatement to active service as a measure of restitution; however, this matter will be taken into account when the Court determines the compensation due for pecuniary damage. C. Measures of satisfaction 174. Although the Commission requested measures of satisfaction to adequately redress the human rights violations, it did not mention specific measures. According to the State, the promotion 032 ARMA, to which Mr. Grijalva belonged, completed on December 19, 1998, the five years required for promotion from Frigate Captain (PFG-IM) to the higher rank, i.e. Navy Captain (CPNV-EM), even though his immediate promotion to the higher rank, Frigate Captain (PFGIM), was scheduled for December 17, 1993. In addition, the Integrated Personnel System of the Armed Forces shows that Mr. Grijalva was suspended from duty for 30 days in 1977, and therefore he was ineligible for promotion to the rank of Navy Captain (CPNV-IM), had he not been discharged on April 27, 1993. 142 Cf. Court of Constitutional Guarantees. Decision No. 181-95–CP, supra. 143 Cf. Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 221. 141 44