- 93 proceedings and decisions that violated their political rights, freedom of expression and the right of assembly, respectively, as well as judicial guarantees and the right to tenure (supra paras. 178 to 183 and 240). The Court bears in mind that the guarantee of tenure of judges shall operate so as to allow the reinstatement to the status of judge or justice to whoever has been arbitrarily deprived of it.456 Moreover, in previous cases, the Court has pointed out that, following arbitrary dismissal, immediate reinstatement constitutes the least harmful measure to meet both the objectives of the judicial restructuring and also the guarantee of tenure inherent in judicial independence, and indicated that “[t]his is so because, to the contrary, States could remove judges and therefore intervene in the Judiciary without any great cost or control.”457 In addition, “this could generate fear in the other judges, who observe that their colleagues are dismissed and then not reinstated, even when the dismissal has been arbitrary. This fear could also affect judicial independence, because it would encourage judges to follow instructions or to abstain from contesting both the nominating and the sanctioning entity.”458 298. Consequently, the Court finds that the State must reinstate Adán Guillermo López Lone, Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza and Luis Chévez de la Rocha in posts similar to those they held at the time of the facts, with the same remuneration and social benefits and a similar rank to the one they would have had at the present time if they had been reinstated promptly. The State must implement this measure within one year of notification of this judgment. When reinstating the victims, the State must assume the amounts corresponding to the victims’ contributions to social benefits during the time they were excluded from the Judiciary. 299. However, if for reasons beyond the control of the victims, the State justifies the impossibility of reinstating Adán Guillermo López Lone, Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza and Luis Chévez de la Rocha in the Judiciary, the State shall instead pay them compensation, which the Court establishes, in fairness, as US$150,000.00 (one hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in local currency each, within six months, or when the one-year period granted in the preceding paragraph for their reinstatement expires. 300. Regarding the request to reinstate Mr. Barrios Maldonado, the Court notes that he was never removed from his post as a result of the disciplinary proceedings that are the purpose of this case (supra para. 147). Consequently, the Court does not find it in order to require his reinstatement. C.2) Satisfaction: publication and dissemination of the judgment 301. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to publish, within six months, at least “the sections on the context and proven facts, as well as the operative paragraphs of the judgment in the official gazette and in at least two national newspapers.” They also requested that publication be made on the websites of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Public Prosecution Service, and be maintained on these sites until the judgment was complied with fully. 302. The State did not present any specific observation in this regard. 456 Likewise, in the case of Apitz v. Venezuela, the Court established that “taking into consideration that the guarantee of permanence and stability of judges, whether they be temporary or permanent, must ensure that those who were arbitrarily removed from their position as judges be reinstated therein, the Court deems that as a reparation measure the State must reinstate the victims, if they so desire, in a position in the Judiciary in which they have the same rank, salary and related social benefits as they had prior to their removal.” Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 246. See also, Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 258. 457 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 81, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra, para. 152. 458 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 81, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra, para. 152.