42 American Convention of the regulations that governed the proceeding and the application thereof in this case.140 145. However, based on the specific circumstances of this case and that the Court did not establish the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the principle of legality and freedom from ex-post facto law, enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention, this Court does not consider it appropriate to order the State to nullify the criminal proceedings and sentence imposed on Mr. Alibux.141 As such, the Court does not order any reparation in this regard. C. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition C.1 Measures of satisfaction C.1.1 Publication and dissemination of the Judgment 146. Neither the Commission nor the State referred to this measure of reparation. 147. International case law and, in particular, that of the Court, has repeatedly established that the judgment can constitute per se a form of reparation.142 Nevertheless, in light of the violations declared in the present Judgment, the Court finds it pertinent to order, as it has in other cases143, that the State must, within six months of notification of this Judgment, publish the following: a) the official summary of the present Judgment developed by the Court in English, which must be translated to Dutch at the expense of the State 144, published in both languages, once in the official gazette and once in a national newspaper with widespread circulation; and b) the present Judgment, in its entirety in English, on an official website of the State, and remain available for a period of one year. C.2 Guarantees of non-repetition C.2.1 Request to adopt measures under domestic law 148. The Commission requested that the State adopt the measures necessary to ensure that high-ranking officials prosecuted for acts committed in the discharge of their official capacity have access to an effective remedy to challenge the sentence imposed upon them. Similarly, the Commission asked that the State take the legislative or other type of measures necessary to guarantee that an effective mechanism exist to review issues of a constitutional nature. 149. The State noted that since August 28, 2007, there has existed a process of appeal for persons who were convicted in the first instance and sentenced for criminal offenses committed during and in the discharge of their capacity as political office holders. The State further alleged that the provisions set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure are applied 140 63. 141 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005, para. Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva, supra, paras. 129 and 130, and Case of Mohamed, supra, paras. 151 and 152. 142 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. V. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of J., supra, para. 394. 143 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra, para. 79, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family V. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series 274, para. 260. 144 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. V. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 263.