- 95 B.2) Satisfaction B.2.a) Publication and dissemination of the Judgment 306. The representative asked that the Court order the publication of: (a) the official summary of this Judgment, once, in the official gazette; (b) the official summary of this Judgment, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and (c) the Judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on an official website. The State indicated that, if the Court so requests, it would not object to the publication of the Judgment. 307. The Court establishes, as it has in other cases,379 that the State should publish, within six months of notification of this Judgment: (a) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the official gazette; (b) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation, and (c) the Judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on an official website. B.3) Other measures requested 308. In addition, the representative asked that: (i) the authorities of the Judiciary and of the Executive Branch who have intervened in this case be investigated; (ii) a public act to acknowledge international responsibility be held, and (iii) medical, psychological and psychosocial treatment be provided to Wong Ho Wing. For its part, the Commission asked that the Court order measures of non-repetition. The State objected to these measures. 309. This Court does not find it necessary to order these other measures requested by the representative and the Commission, considering that the delivery of this Judgment and the reparations ordered in it are sufficient and appropriate. C. Compensation 310. The Commission asked the Court to order that full reparation be made to Wong Ho Wing for the violations that were established. 311. The representative asked that the Court determine the consequential damages and the loss of earnings of Wong Ho Wing. In this regard, he indicated that, as a result of the arbitrary deprivation of his liberty for more than five years, the victim was unable to administer his businesses in the United States of America and, for this, he requested compensation of US$3,212,713.55, which corresponded to the value of two restaurants and the loss of their leasing rates. He also requested that the determination of the pecuniary damage be carried out in the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State in application of domestic norms. Furthermore, he indicated that, before being deprived of his liberty, Wong Ho Wing earned approximately US$ 10,000.00 a month from his business activities. Regarding the non-pecuniary damage, he asked that compensation be awarded for the suffering and affliction caused to the victim and asked the Court to determine the non-pecuniary damage taking into consideration the principle of pretium doloris of the victim, and establishing an amount, in equity. 312. The State reiterated that it had not violated the rights recognized in the American Convention, so that it had no obligation to make reparation. Nevertheless, it affirmed its opposition 379 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 79, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 466.