the full restitution of the reparation of the harm caused. However, due to the passage of time, more than 19 years and 20 years, respectively, since Messrs. Cuya and Valenzuela and Mr. Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez were not ratified in their positions, in the present case the Court will not order their reinstatement as a measure of restitution. 195. Consequently, the Court considers it pertinent to order compensation, which will be independent of the compensation it sets related to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The State must pay, within a period of one year, an indemnity for this concept, which is fixed in equity, to the amount of USD 80,000.00 (eighty thousand United States dollars), which the State must deliver to each of the following victims: Messrs. Cuya Lavy and Díaz Alvarado, and the sum of USD 60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars), which the State must deliver to each of the following victims: Mr. Valenzuela Cerna and Ms. Rodríguez Alvarado, because both have been enjoying a retirement pension since their removal from their positions, since September 2002 and since July 2001, respectively. B.2 Measures of satisfaction 196. The representatives of Messrs. Cuya Lavy and Valenzuela Cerna requested the State be ordered to publish the judgment, and the representatives of Mr. Valenzuela also requested its publication on an official website. 197. The State indicated that, if a violation is declared, it does not object to the request for publication of the Judgment in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper with wide national circulation. 198. The Commission did not rule on the representatives' request 199. The Court deems it pertinent to order, as it has done in other cases, 177 that the State, within six months from the notification of this Judgment, in a legible and adequate font size, make the following publications : a) the official summary of the Judgment prepared by the Court, once only, in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper with wide national circulation, and b) this Judgment in its entirety, available for at least a period of one year, on a State website in the Prosecution Service of Justice and Human Rights, in a manner accessible to the public. The State must immediately inform this Court once it proceeds to make each one of the publications ordered, regardless of the period of one year to present its first report provided in the operative part of this Judgment. C. Non-repetition measures 200. The Commission requested that the State adopt the necessary non-repetition measures to prevent similar events from occurring in the future and ensure the application of the rules of due process within the framework of the evaluation and ratification processes of judges and prosecutors, ordering the legislative and other measures necessary to ensure that the aforementioned processes comply with the standards described in the Merits Report. In particular, it considered that the State should make the necessary legislative and practical modifications to: (i) Ensure that the evaluation and ratification processes of judges and prosecutors are subject to legal review and do not constitute a vote of confidence; (ii) Duly regulate the offenses committed that give rise to the non-ratification of a judge or prosecutor, based on objective criteria and in a proportional manner; (iii) Allow judges and prosecutors to defend themselves against specific charges against them in light of said objective criteria, such as recourse to appeal to a higher authority within the framework of the process against them, so that they can rely on a review 177 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Garzón Guzmán v. Ecuador, supra, para. 121. 49