63 9, 1998 (supra para. 76.aa), and that, in “Ministerial Resolution” No. 1432-2000-IN of November 7, 2000, it declared null and void the “directorial resolution” annulling Mr. Ivcher’s nationality (supra para. 76.z). 180. Consequently, the Court considers that the State has already responded to the Commission’s request concerning the return of Mr. Ivcher’s nationality title and, therefore, that request is now immaterial. 181. With regard to the violation of Article 21 of the Convention, the Court believes that the State should facilitate the conditions so that Mr. Ivcher Bronstein, whose Peruvian nationality has been restored, may take the necessary steps to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as majority shareholder of Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A., as he was until August 1, 1997, in the terms of domestic legislation (supra para. 76.s.3). As for the recovery of dividends and other receipts that would have corresponded to Mr. Ivcher as majority shareholder and officer of the Company, domestic law should also apply. To that end, the respective petitions should be submitted to the competent national authorities. 182. With regard to Article 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that the State should guarantee Mr. Ivcher the right to seek, investigate and disseminate information and ideas through Peruvian television’s Channel 2-Frecuencia Latina. 183. In accordance with extensive international jurisprudence, the Court considers that obtaining a judgment that protects the victims’ claims is, in itself, a form of satisfaction110. However, it also believes, particularly taking into account the acts of persecution suffered by the victim (supra para. 76.y), that an additional compensation for moral damages should be granted 111. This should be established fairly, on the basis of a prudent appraisal, since it is not possible to assess it precisely112. 110 Cf. “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 6, para. 99; Constitutional Court case, supra note 8, para. 122; Blake case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, para. 55; Suárez Rosero case. Reparations, supra note 108, para. 72; Castillo Páez case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 84; Neira Alegría et al case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; and El Amparo case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 62. 111 Cf. Blake case. Reparations, supra note 110, para. 55; Castillo Páez case. Reparations supra note 110, para. 84; and El Amparo case. Reparations, supra note 110, para. 35; and Cf., inter alia, Cour eur. D. H, arrêt Kruslin 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 25, para. 39; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt McCallun of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183, p. 17, para. 37; Cour eur. D. H, arrêt Wassink du 27 septembre 1990, Series A no. 185-A, p. 15, para. 41; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt Koendjbiharie du 25 octobre 1990, Series A no. 185-B, p. 42, para. 34; Cour eur. D. H, arrêt Darby du 23 octobre 1990, Series A no. 187, p. 14, para. 40; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt Lala c. Pays-Bas du 22 septembre 1994, Series A No. 297-A, p. 15, para. 38; Cour eur. D. H, arrêt Pelladoah c. Pays-Bas du 22 septembre 1994, série A no. 297-B, p. 26, para. 44; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt Kroon et autres c. Pays-Bas du 27 octobre 1994, série A no. 297-C, p. 59, para. 45; Cour eur. D. H, arrêt Boner c. Royaume-Uni du 28 octobre 1994, série A no. 300-B, p. 76, para. 46; and Cour eur. D. H, arrêt Ruiz Torija c. Espagne du 9 décembre 1994, série A no. 303-A, p. 13, para. 33. 112 Cf. inter alia, Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations (Article 63(1), American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 139; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Reparations (Article 63(1), American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 31, para. 50; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 110, para. 84; Neira Alegría et al. case. Reparations, supra note 110, para. 58; and El Amparo case, Reparations, supra note 110, para. 50; and, inter alia, Eur Court H.R., Kenmache v. France (Article 50) judgment of 2 November 1993, Series A No. 270-B, p. 16, para. 11.