establishing that Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón will not be reinstated, or on the expiry of the one-year period granted in the preceding paragraph. 2. Satisfaction 155. The Commission did not ask the Court to order any measure of satisfaction. 156. The representatives asked that “the judgment handed down in these proceedings be made public.” In this regard, they requested that the State “publicly acknowledge its international responsibility by the publication of the main paragraphs of the judgment on merits handed down in this case in a national newspaper.” 157. The State did not refer to this measure of reparation. 158. The Court finds, as it has in other cases,191 that the State must publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: a) This 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) This entire judgment, available for one year, on an official web site. 3. Guarantees of non-repetition 159. “Taking into account that the violations alleged in [this case] were caused by the consideration that temporary and provisional judges in Venezuela can be appointed and removed freely,” the Commission asked the Court to “reiterate to the State the order given in the Reverón Trujillo case with regard to the amendment of the norms and practices that reflect that consideration.” 160. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to “take appropriate measures to organize the competitive examinations for all the judicial posts according to the guidelines established […] in the Venezuelan Constitution, which means that any legal professional, and not only the judges holding the posts, can participate in the examinations.” In addition, they asked that the State “abstain from continuing the arbitrary and discretionary removal of provisional judges in order to guarantee them the necessary autonomy and independence and that, in the cases in which it is agreed to sanction provisional judges, they are guaranteed a review of the decision before an independent judge with competence to grant integral reparation of the situation.” Additionally, the representatives requested the “establishment of the disciplinary tribunals referred to in the Constitution and also in the Ethics Code for Venezuelan Judges […], as these are the bodies that should process and decide on disciplinary proceedings against judicial officials.” The representatives also asked that the Supreme Court of Justice “make public, by an official decision, the determination to abandon the practice of discretionary removals of provisional judges and that, in the cases in which sanctions are annulled, it re-establish the situation violated by, among other actions, the reinstatement of the judges to their posts with all the legal effects.” 191 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, operative paragraph 5(d); Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 22, para. 273, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 13, para. 217. 48