denied, even as his wife’s administrative claim for the benefit provided for under Law 24,043 was finally recognized for the time during which she was under supervised release. 62. Both the Commission and the representative have asked that, as a measure of restitution, the State make a mechanism available to Mr. Almeida suitable for reconsidering his request for compensation. However, given the more than 25 years have passed since Mr. Almeida filed his initial claim, and the victim has attempted a variety of administrative and judicial routes in seeking reconsideration of his request for compensation, the Court orders the State to pay Mr. Ruffino Jorge Almeida, in equity, the amount of US$125,000 (one hundred and twenty-five thousand United States dollars)61 in compensation for the time he was under de facto supervised release. C. Measures of satisfaction 63. Neither the Commission nor the representative presented specific recommendations or arguments on this point. 64. The State did not submit specific arguments on this point. 65. The Court finds, as it has in other cases,62 that the State must publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette, in an appropriate and legible font; and (b) this judgment in its entirety, to be available for one year, on an official State website. The State must inform this Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, irrespective of the oneyear timeframe for presenting its first report established in the eighth operative paragraph of this judgment. D. Guarantees of non-repetition 66. The representative asked the State to order the administrative and legal measures necessary for reopening all the cases in which reparations have been rejected for victims of state terrorism in the framework of Law 24,043 in view of their new treatment pursuant to the criteria developed by internal jurisprudence, in respect for the human rights of the victims of State terrorism. The Commission issued no stance on this pleading. 67. The State argued that the measures of non-repetition requested by the representative "failed to acknowledge the exceptional nature of [Mr.] Almeida’s situation" and noted that the Commission recognized, in its Report on the Merits, that the situation "in general terms was later corrected through […] Judicial interpretation." 68. The Court observes that there is a possibility that other persons could be in the same factual circumstances as Mr. Almeida. Therefore, as a guarantee of non-repetition, the State is ordered to administratively review the situation of persons who request it and who are in the same factual circumstances as Mr. Almeida, pursuant to the case law criteria developed in the Noro and Robasto cases. Toward this, the State must publicize this measure to bring it to the attention of persons who may be interested in it. It shall keep an announcement published and visible for a period of three months on the official websites of the State bodies it considers pertinent, in particular on To calculate this amount, the Court used the compensation granted by domestic authorities to his wife, Ms. Claudia Graciela Esteves, through Ministry of Justice and Human Rights resolution of May 22, 2015 (evidence file, folio 85), who was under the same de facto supervised release regime, in the same factual context, as Mr. Almeida. 61 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79; and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, para. 158. 62 18