35 stating that the two last positions occupied by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo, that is Judge in Control duties and Judge in Trial duties (supra para. 49), are being occupied by titular judges.153 In this sense, the Court considers that these were not the reasons why the SPA did not order the reinstatement of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo, which would be enough to dismiss the State’s arguments. However, the Tribunal points out that the entitlement of the judges mentioned by the State occurred after October 1, 2006 and May 16, 2008, respectively, 154 that is, two and almost four years after the SPA denied the reinstatement of the alleged victim. 126. In what refers to the lack of payment of the salaries that were not perceived by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo, the Court considers that neither the restructuring of the Judicial Power or the provisional nature of the position of the alleged victim have any relationship whatsoever with her right to be repaired for the arbitrary dismissal she suffered. According to the Court’s jurisprudence, reparations are measures that seek to make the effects of the violations committed disappear.155 The reparation of the damage caused by the violation requires, as long as possible, complete restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, a series of measures shall be determined in order to, besides guaranteeing the rights infringed, repair the consequences resulting from the infraction, as well as establish the payments of an indemnity as compensation for the damages caused. 156 Specifically, the Tribunal has stated that in cases of arbitrary dismissals of judges, “the State shall reimburse those judges for the salaries and benefits they did not perceive.”157 127. Based on all the aforementioned, the Tribunal considers that the State violated Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same, sincefirst of all, that the remedy to which Mrs. Reverón Trujillo had access did not offer the adequate reparations. Second, there was no justified reason to not reinstate Mrs. Reverón Trujillo to the judicial position she occupied and pay the salaries not perceived by her. Therefore, the domestic remedy filed did not result effective. On the other hand, some of the regulations and practices associated to the judicial restructuring process that is being implemented in Venezuela (supra para. 121), due to the specific consequences it had on the specific case, causes a very high infringement on judicial independence. 128. In view of the previous conclusion and that exposed in paragraph 62 supra, the Court considers that it is not necessary to analyze in this chapter if the reparation measures agreed on by the SPA in favor of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo were adequate, especially, the competitive tender, since, it reiterates, the adequate reparations were the reinstatement of the position and payment of the salaries that were not 153 Cf. Details of the Judge Tivisay Sánchez (dossier of annexes to the final written arguments of the State, Volume II, annex 26, folio 3786), and Details of the Judge Marta Isabel Gomis (dossier of annexes to the final written arguments of the State, Volume II, annex 26, folio 3788). 154 Cf. Details of the Judge Tivisay Sánchez, supra note 153, folio 3786 and details of the Judge Isabel Gomis, supra note 153, folio 3788. 155 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 205; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 143, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 202. 156 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25 and 26; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 155, para. 201, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina supra note 10, para. 120. 157 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra note 58, para. 120.