removed from office.” It added that, “[i]f, for well-founded reasons, it is not possible to reinstate him, [the State should] pay him alternative compensation.” In the case of Carlos Fernández Gadea, the IACHR notes that, as he was deceased, it was necessary to provide “alternative compensation in his favor.” 184. The representatives asked the Court to “order the reinstatement […] in office” of Mr. Ríos Ávalos, “in the first vacancy that exists or arises, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and equivalent rank to which he would have been entitled […] if he had not been removed from office […]; unpaid wages from 2004 to date, […] and budgetary provision for the corresponding retirement contribution.” They added that, “[i]f, for well-founded reasons, the State proves that his reinstatement is not possible […], it must pay alternative compensation, and also unpaid wages until he reaches 75 years of age,” which is the age at which justices of the Supreme Court must retire according to article 261 of the Paraguayan Constitution. In the case of Mr. Fernández Gadea, they asked for “payment of the alternative compensation that the Court considers fair,” and requested that the Court order the payment of “unpaid wages up until the date of his death.” 185. The State argued that, at this time, there were no vacancies on the Supreme Court of Justice. It added that the court had indicated that restitution, in the sense requested, was impossible as regards reinstatement in the high courts. 186. This Court notes that, at this time, there are no vacancies on the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay, and that no information was provided on the specific time at which such vacancies would arise. This situation, added to the time that has elapsed since the facts of this case occurred and the particularities of the function of the justices of the Supreme Court means that it is impossible to grant the representatives’ request. Therefore, since it is not viable to order the reinstatement of Mr. Ríos Ávalos, the State must pay him an alternative compensation which the Court establishes, in equity, at US$80,000.00 (eighty thousand United States dollars). This sum must be paid within one year of notification of this judgment. 187. With regard to Carlos Fernández Gadea, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to rule on the request for restitution owing to his decease before this judgment was delivered, which makes this measure of reparation impossible. 188. It should be added that the representatives mentioned other concepts, such as the payment of unpaid wages, which relates to another type of measure of reparation – specifically to eventual pecuniary damage – and this will be examined opportunely. C. Measures of satisfaction 189. The representatives asked the Court to order the publication of this judgment, “for one year, on the official websites of the National Congress, the Presidency of the Republic, and the Judiciary, and in the Official Gazette.” The State argued that the publication of the judgment constituted a measure that was “sufficient to redress the alleged violations.” The Commission did not comment in this regard. 190. The Court, based on the arguments of the parties and as it has in other cases, 187 establishes that the State must publish the following within six months of notification of this judgment, in an adequate and legible font and in Paraguay’s official languages: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette, and (b) this Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 177. 187 46