48 * * * 192. On the other hand, the Tribunal declared that in this case Venezuela did not adequately guarantee judicial independence, since its domestic regulations and practices (especially its jurisprudential line) consider that provisional judges do not enjoy the guarantee of tenure (supra paras. 121 and 127). 193. Therefore, the Court considers that as a guarantee of non-repetition, the State shall, within a reasonable period of time, adjust its domestic legislation of the American Convention through the modification of the rules and practices that consider provisional judges as freely removable. 6. Publishing of the Judgment 194. The representatives requested that the state of Venezuela publicly acknowledge its international responsibility through the publication of the main paragraphs of the judgment on merits issued in the present case, in a newspaper with national circulation. 195. As has been stated by the Court in other cases,188 as a measure of satisfaction, the State shall publish, once, and in the Official Newspaper and in another of widespread national circulation, paragraphs 63 to 128, 138 to 141, and 190 to 193 of the present Judgment and its operative paragraphs, without the corresponding footnotes. The state has a six-month term as of the notification of the present Judgment to comply with the aforementioned. 7. Costs and expenses 196. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to “order the State to pay the costs and expenses duly proven by the victim, in which the latter has incurred as a consequence of the proceedings carried out both at a national and Inter-American level.” 197. The representatives requested that the Court “acknowledge in equity the expenses caused as a result of costs and expenses in the litigation (domestic and international).” For the concept of professional fees in the domestic and international realm they requested the amount of US$ 45,521.00 (forty five thousand five hundred and twenty one dollars of the United States of America) and for procedural expenses within the domestic and international realm they requested US$ 14,531.00 (fourteen thousand five hundred and thirty one dollars of the United States of America). 198. The State in its response to the application requested that the Court take into consideration that the representatives “[did] not provide any evidence whatsoever to prove the alleged expenses incurred in to cover what they classify as ‘procedural expenses’ within the domestic legislation and in [the] Inter-American system.” Once the representatives forwarded evidence along with their final written arguments, the State did not present observations. 199. The Tribunal points out, first of all, that the representatives, when forwarding 188 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 Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 415, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 15, para. 199.