214. The Court is mindful of the constitutional change that occurred in 2008 in Ecuador, as well as the subsequent restructuring of the Supreme Court, which implied major changes on substantive matters such as the number of members of the National Court of Justice, which is smaller than that of the Supreme Court of Justice. The Court notes that several judges took these circumstances into account when renouncing their claim to be reinstated. The Court stresses that the victims’ representatives did not specify which of the 27 judges had expressly renounced reinstatement and requested only pecuniary reparation, given the impossibility of being reinstated. The Court also emphasizes that the cases in which it ordered the reinstatement of judges in their posts involved judges who served in lower courts, 246 whereas in this case the Supreme Court justices could only be appointed to another High Court of the Judiciary, which made their reinstatement difficult or impossible. Consequently, the Court considers that, in the new constitutional context, and given the difficulties of designating the judges in the same position, or in one of similar rank, as well as the new regulations protecting the tenure of judicial officials, their reinstatement would not be possible. 215. Nevertheless, the Court recalls its jurisprudence, 247 according to which compensation is ordered in those cases where it is not possible to reinstate a judge who has been arbitrarily removed from his position. Therefore, the Court sets the amount of US$ 60,000.00 (sixty thousand dollars of the United States of America) as a measure of compensation for each victim. This amount must be paid within a maximum term of one year as of notification of this Judgment. 3. Guarantees of non-repetition: amendment of domestic legislation Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 216. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to ”[a]dopt measures of non-repetition, including the measures necessary to ensure that the relevant domestic regulations and practice adhere to clear principles and offer guarantees in the appointment, tenure and removal of Judges, in line with the standards established in the American Convention.” 217. As guarantees of non-repetition the representatives requested a “formal guarantee of judicial independence in accordance with the standards of the Convention,” considering that “the provisions established in the current Constitution and in the Organic Code of the Judiciary must be applied, without restriction, and implemented in the judicial service.” They argued that despite far-reaching judicial reforms, “there are still provisions that could undermine judicial independence, and these have to do with the transitory provisions of the Judiciary Service, which have been further modified by a popular referendum held in 2011. According to the representatives, these “norms and reforms have neither been able to guarantee the stability required by the Judiciary, nor the necessary independence”, since the representative of the Judiciary Council is elected by the President of the Republic and it is he who has the authority to sanction the judges of the National Court of Justice. 246 For example, in the Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, the victim was a judge at the Court of First Instance of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Judicial Circuit when she was dismissed. In the Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, the victim was also a judge at the Court of First Instance of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Judicial Circuit. For their part, the judges in the Case of Apitz v. Venezuela served at the First Court of Administrative Disputes. Cf. Case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 78; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 49, and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, para. 2. 247 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Contentious Administrative”) v. Venezuela, para. 246, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 154. 62