of Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, declared to the detriment of the victim, the Court deems it pertinent to establish the following measures. 1. Restitution 135. The representatives requested the Court to order the State to "take the necessary actions in order to carry out the promotion procedure as ordered by the Constitutional Court, that is, that once it has met the requirements established in the law, as pointed out by the Constitutional Tribunal, it is to proceed according to the military legislation and that the Council of General [Officers] request the respective authorities to issue the [d]ecrees of promotion and to make public said decrees in the respective general order.” The Commission did not state a specific position regarding this point, and limited itself to request that this Court “order the State to take necessary measures to effectively comply with the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador issued on March 12, 2002. 136. In this regard, the State sustained, contrary to that claimed by the representatives, that the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal, by not having retroactive effects did not imply the promotion of Mr. Mejía Idrovo to the next higher rank. “The Constitutional Tribunal ordered instead the reparation of the damages.” 137. The Court notes that it indeed was proven in Chapter VI that there were omissions in the due process, which were corrected in the domestic forum during the processing of the case before the Court. The Tribunal notes that, by decision of October 8, 2009, the Constitutional Court ordered “[t]he reinstatement of the plaintiff to the professional situation that he held within the Land Forces, on the date immediately prior to the issuance of the Executive Decrees declared unconstitutional.” Subsequently, on October 18, 2010, Mr. Mejía Idrovo was reinstated to active duty as Colonel of the Army. 138. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that during the processing of the case before this Tribunal, Mr. Mejía Idrovo was reinstated to his position, to which his rights have been restored for the time the violation occurred. Therefore, in this aspect he has received reparation. 2. Satisfaction a) Publication of the Judgment 139. The representatives requested that “the State must publish in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of national circulation, once, the chapter on the established facts” in the judgment of this Court and “the operative paragraphs therein.” Moreover, they requested that the State “carry out a public military celebration of redress for José Mejía wherein it offers an apology for the damage incurred by him and his family during these years and official disapproval of the direct perpetrators of the violations at hand, in addition to the contempt against the victim and his family.” 140. In this regard, the State noted that there is a lack of cooperation by the representative of Colonel Mejía Idrovo “in order to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, despite the State’s good faith.” It added that “the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights drafted an extract of a public apology” that was rejected by Mr. José Mejía Idrovo’s attorney on November 5, 2009. According to the State 41