a) Regarding Mr. Cuya: (a) Annulment of Resolution No. 500-2002-CNM of November 20, 2002, which implies: (i) “rehabilitate” Mr. Cuya to hold the position of Specialized Civil Judge, after the re-establishment of the validity of the titles of appointment, and (ii) rejoin in the position of Specialized Judge of the Supreme Court of the Judicial District of Lima, Supreme Court that would correspond to him if he had not been arbitrarily dismissed. That is, to promote the reinstatement to the position of origin and promotion to the immediate higher level in the judicial profession as compensation for the loss of 17 years of opportunity for promotion in the judicial profession, and (b) Remove the name of the victim from public records and databases in which it appears as disqualified to perform public functions. b) Regarding Mr. Valenzuela, his active reinstatement to the position he held and, if this is not possible, grant a pension in his favor with the benefits that it entails, such as retirement, medical insurance, medications and psychological care. c) Regarding Mr. Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Marta Silvana Rodríguez, their reinstatement as Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of the Junín Judicial District. 192. The State referred to its observations 176 regarding recommendations 1 and 2 (supra para. 190 and infra para. 208 and 220) of the Commission in the Merits Report. Regarding the restitution measures, it argued that eventually it would be up to the National Board of Justice to assume the reinstatement of the titles of appointment that were canceled at the time, as well as to initiate new evaluation and ratification processes. 193. Additionally, regarding Mr. Cuya Lavy's request that his name be removed from the registry or database recording him as disqualified, he reported that, due to the case law development of the Constitutional Court, it was established that the non-ratification decision is not a sanction and therefore should not lead to the impediment of re-entry to the profession as judge or prosecutor. However, it clarified that the Constitutional Court indicated that "such magistrates are not prevented from applying again to the Judiciary or to the Public Prosecution Service." Furthermore, the State considered that "there is no prohibition on reentry to the profession and that, therefore, there is no purpose to rule on this reparation requested by the alleged victim." In addition, it detailed the following: Regarding Mr. Cuya Lavy, it explained that, if the alleged victim wanted to reach an understanding about his reinstatement, the State would evaluate and consider the option. However, it stated that it would not be possible to promote him to his post “by way of compensation”, because according to the design of the judicial career in Peru there is no automatic promotion, but rather that he must meet the requirements and pass the public tender. b) Regarding Mr. Valenzuela, it specified that he has had a retirement pension since 2002, corresponding to the “social security regime of Decree-Law No. 20530”. c) Regarding Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse: they did not expressly request annulment of the decision of non-ratification, but it can be inferred as implicit that they requested their reinstatement. a) 194. With regard to Messrs. Cuya Lavy, Valenzuela Cerna, Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Alvarado, in consideration of the allegations by their representatives and in view of the State's position, the Court considers that the immediate reinstatement of said victims, at least to the position they held at the time of being removed from the Judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service, respectively, is, in principle, the measure that would be appropriate and that best satisfies 176 The observations of the State are: “[i]n relation to the first recommendation, the Peruvian State indicates that prior to the reinstatement of the presumed victims in a position similar to the one they held, the former CNM was in charge of reinstating the titles of the alleged victims. Similarly, with respect to the second recommendation, it should be considered that, with the former CNM having been in charge of the Evaluation and Ratification Processes of the alleged victims, it would be one of the main entities linked to the aforementioned second recommendation. However, this institution was suspended and replaced by the JNJ.” 48