29 Laws 22482 and 18846; report No. 0053-98-GAF-SP-GG-PJ, July 9, 1998, and the statementy given by María Elena Loayza-Tamayo before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.) IX REPARATIONS 107. The Commission petitioned the Court to instruct the State that it was to "expressly recognize that the freedom it gave to the victims is permanent, unqualified and unrestricted." 108. The State argued that such a claim "is irrelevant to the principle that informs the right to compensation and reparation that the Judgment establishes. " It added that the Commission’s petition “reveals an impermissible punitive intent [and that no] government can guarantee that an individual’s freedom will be without restriction or condition of any kind, since that depends entirely upon the conduct of the individual in question. " 109. In its Judgment on the merits, the Court ordered Peru to release the victim. In that Judgment, it is clear that the freedom so ordered is definitive and final, unconditional and unqualified. Hence, the Court understands that the State’s release of the victim on October 16, 1997, is the kind inferred from the Judgment and therefore believes it need not accede to the Commission’s request. * * * 110. The victim requested that the Court order Peru to reinstate her in all public teaching positions she held and to use its good offices to have her reinstated in her previous positions within the private sector. 111. For its part, the Commission petitioned the Court to order the State to: a) Reinstate the victim "in all her previous positions of employment, at the level and rank she had prior to being unlawfully deprived of her freedom"; b) Prevail upon the National School of Dramatic Arts and the Universidad de San Martín de Porres to reinstate the victim as a teacher in her areas of specialization; failing that, pay the victim a sum equivalent to the lost pay up to her retirement age; c) Give the victim the category and grade she would have had, had she not been detained and incarcerated or, failing that, pay her a sum equivalent to the remuneration that she will fail to receive on that account; and d) Re-enter the victim’s name in the records of the respective retirement plan retroactive to the date of her detention. 112. The State argued that the petition seeking the victim’s reinstatement in her public teaching positions was "not necessary" since, as shown by the December 17, 1997 Directorial Resolution 2273 -which the victim herself had offered in evidence-, she had already been reinstated in the teaching service as a professor teaching 24 hours of history and geography at the Rímac National Girl’s High School. The State