250. Furthermore, the Court notes that the State itself, when commenting on the supervening evidence presented by the representatives on May 16, 2013, indicated that “if [it] had been aware of the existence of these documents […] it would have made every effort to open internal investigations […]” (supra para. 82). In other words, the State itself indicated the possibility that, if it had been aware of certain factual evidence previously, it would have taken the corresponding internal investigative measures. Likewise, the State referred in its arguments to internal norms on actions for indemnity against public officials responsible by act or omission in the performance of their functions, although it did not clarify whether these actions are included in those that the State indicated had prescribed. Consequently, the Court will not rule in relation to the State’s argument on the prescription of the actions because it lacks sufficient information. 251. The Court also considers that insufficient evidence has been provided by the Commission and the representatives to determine which of the acts or omissions of the State authorities should be subject to criminal prosecution or the subsequent imposition of liability of an administrative, disciplinary or other nature, so that it is not appropriate to order the State to investigate the facts. This should not prevent, as indicated by the State itself and the applicable Bolivian domestic law, the Bolivian judicial or administrative authorities from taking any necessary investigative measures in relation to the facts of this case. The Court will not monitor any possible proceedings in the domestic sphere based on the facts of this case. C. Measures of integral reparation: restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition 252. The Commission requested, in general, that the Court order the State “to adopt measures of non-repetition that include training officials in charge of immigration proceedings that may lead to the deportation or expulsion of migrants, as well as proceedings to determine refugee status [and] other measures of non-repetition in order to ensure that the practices of the domestic authorities in these two spheres are compatible with the American Convention.” 253. International case law and, in particular, that of the Court, has established repeatedly that a judgment may constitute per se a form of reparation.283 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case and the adverse effects on the victims arising from the violations of the American Convention declared to their detriment, the Court finds it pertinent to determine the following measures of satisfaction. C.1. Restitution Arguments of the parties 254. The representatives asked the Court to order the State: (a) to annul the decision ordering the expulsion of the Pacheco Tineo family and that, in addition, its legal effects should be abrogated, eliminating the word “expelled” from the State’s records and notifying UNHCR, and (b) to return to the Pacheco Tineo family all the documentation and other belongings that it had retained at the time of the events of this case or, if this is materially impossible, to provide them with fair, equitable and reasonable financial compensation. 255. Regarding the annulment of the expulsion decision, the State advised that, in order to do this, under Bolivian law, this must be the result of a formal request within six months of the issue of the respective decision. Thus, the State considered that the action aimed at obtaining this annulment was already prescribed and that, in addition, “the State cannot be made 283 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, paras. 244 and 250. 76