210. The representatives initially requested that the State reinstate the former judges in the situation prior to the violation of their rights, that is, that it reinstate them in positions similar to those they held, with the same salary, social benefits and rank comparable to that they would hold today had they not been dismissed. If reinstatement was not possible, they requested compensation of at least US$ 60,000.00 for each of the victims or their legitimate heirs. 211. Subsequently, the representatives stated at the public hearing that they “wish [ed] to say on behalf of the victims, and after having consulted them, that they expressly renounce their reinstatement in their positions.” Then, in their final written arguments the representatives stated that the victims considered that the appropriate way to compensate a dismissed judge was to reinstate him or her in office. Now, some victims considered that they had a legitimate right to be reinstated and that, if this was not possible, they should be paid the appropriate compensation. However another group of victims considered that in the current situation in Ecuador, reinstatement would be an impossible measure of reparation to fulfill, and therefore requested that the respective compensation be applied. The victims who renounced their right to reinstatement argued that the State had established four Supreme Courts since their dismissal, the last one through a public contest; this would imply nullifying the last contest, which was promoted by the Government itself, something that would be impossible in practice. Furthermore, they argued that the 2008 Constitution introduced reforms related to the administration of justice in 2010, with different rules for access to and tenure in office. This group of victims argued that “in the fragile situation of the Judiciary and in the current political situation, ordering the reinstatement of the victims as a measure of reparation could call into question the institutionality of the Judiciary, which has recently sworn in the judges of the last National Court of Justice.” They further argued that ordering their reinstatement could imply a process of re-victimization before public opinion, added to which many of them have serious health problems. However, they emphasized that renouncing the claim to be reinstated did not imply renouncing their claim for compensation. 212. The State argued that “the restructuring process in the Judiciary […] is directly related to the current impossibility of complying with this recommendation”, since reinstating the judges would imply dismissing those who comprise the National Court of Justice, thereby incurring in “a situation of illegal dismissal of the judges and therefore, [failing to comply with] the third recommendation of Report 65/11 [of the Inter-American Commission], regarding the guarantees of tenure in office for the judiciary, [and furthermore,] of violating constitutional principles.” As to the reinstatement of the victims, the State argued that on August 24, 2011 the National Council of the Judiciary of Transition issued a call for applications to the position of judge of the National Court of Justice and that the best scores were taken into account based on principles of impartiality and justice. Considerations of the Court 213. This Court has determined that the victims’ dismissal resulted from a decision that infringed judicial guarantees, judicial independence, tenure in office and judicial protection (supra paras. 180 and 194). The Court takes into account the fact that the guarantee of tenure or stability in office for any judge, whether permanent or temporary, must provide for the reinstatement of a judge who has been arbitrarily removed from his position. 245 245 Similarly, in the Case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela the Court established that “taking into consideration that the irremovability of judges, whether they be temporary or permanent, must ensure that those who were arbitrarily removed from their position as judges be reinstated therein, the Court considers that as a reparation measure the State must reinstate the victims, if they so wish, in a position in the Judiciary in which they have the same rank, salary and related social benefits as they had prior to their removal.” Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, para. 246. 61