B. Measures of restitution 121. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to fully comply, as promptly as possible, with the decision of February 12, based on the finding of the Expert Report that calculated the correct amount of liquidation owed to each of the 2,317 [sic] workers and to proceed to immediately pay them. 122. The representatives Valdivia Ayala, Guerrero Cassuso, Rossi Mérida and Valdivia Bocanegra also requested “full compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court of February 12, 1992.” 123. The representative Meneses Huayra requested, in general terms, “integral reparation” for the violations suffered, which would include “due compensation” for all the victims for the harm caused by the delay and consequent denial of justice.” 124. The State recalled that the Merits Report was issued on May 9, 2018, after it had complied with the execution of the decision of February 12. It added that this amount was fully paid from 2004 until 2017 and that this information was provided to the Commission and was not refuted by the alleged victims. 125. The Court has concluded that, with regard to the sub-group of 2,309 workers who continued to claim the amounts owed due to the decision of February 12, in spite of more than 29 years having elapsed since its issuance and the execution of that decision is still open because the effective payment of the amounts established in the Expert Report have not been made. Therefore, the Court orders that the State comply with the domestic decisions and, thus, guarantee the effective payment of the sums due under the terms of the decision of September 12, and especially of the Expert Report, to the 2,309 victims listed in Annex II or their heirs, according to domestic law, in the amounts established in that list as established in the Expert Report and that total USD 242,601,058.99 (two hundred forty-two million, six hundred one thousand, fifty-eight dollars and ninety-nine cents in the currency of the United States of America). The State must, as of the notification of this judgment, begin to make gradual payments, which cannot exceed two years to fully pay the amounts owed. C. Measures of satisfaction 126. The Commission requested, in general terms, that the Court adopt the pertinent measures to “fully redress the violations declared” in its Report on the Merits. 127. Neither the representatives nor the State made any type of claim in this regard. 145 128. The Court orders, as it has done in other cases, 146 that the State publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in the Official Gazette in a legible and adequate font; (b) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in a newspaper of national circulation in a legible and adequate font, and (c) the complete judgment, available for one year, on an official Web site of the State that is accessible to the public. The State must immediately inform the Court when it has published each of the above, notwithstanding the period of one year to submit its first report ordered in paragraph 10 of this judgment. 145 The representative Meneses Huayra requested certain measures of satisfaction in her brief with final written arguments, which were declared inadmissible for being time-barred, pursuant to the terms of Article 40 of the Rules. 146 Cf. Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 226 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members c. Mexico, supra, para. 167. 33