-29in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make full reparation, in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused to the victims.168 A. Injured Party 122. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers the injured party to be anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right established therein. Therefore, this Court considers Eduardo Benjamín Colindres Schonenberg to be the “injured party,” who, as a victim of the violations declared in Chapter VI, will be the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Measures of Satisfaction 123. As a measure of satisfaction, the representatives requested to order publication of the judgment's text “on the electronic page[s] of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Legislative Assembly, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” 124. As it has done in other cases169, the Court orders that within a period of six months counted from the notification of this Judgment, the State publish: a) the official summary of this Judgment, prepared by the Court, one time only in the Official Gazette; b) the official summary of the Judgment prepared by the Court, one time only, in a newspaper with wide national circulation, in a legible and adequate font size, and c) this Judgment in its entirety, available for a period of one year on the official websites of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Legislative Assembly, and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. 125. The State must inform this Court immediately once it proceeds to make each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year term it has to present its first report, as provided in operative point 8 of this Judgment. C. Guarantees of Non-Repetition 126. The Commission requested, as a measure of non-repetition in this case, “to order the normative modifications […] necessary to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings against judges of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, both in regulation and in practice, are carried out with guarantees of competence, independence, and impartiality,” in strict adherence to the right of defense, as well as that the disciplinary causes and the applicable sanctions are compatible with the principle of legality.” The representatives adhered to what was requested by the Commission, clarifying that at present "there is no previously established and specific procedure for dismissing a TSE judge from their functions, and therefore there is a regulatory vacuum," also requesting the stipulation of a term for El Salvador to make the pertinent regulatory changes. 127. This Court has already concluded that in this case, the dismissal of Mr. Colindres Schonenberg was carried out following a decision of the Constitutional Division without the existence of regulations that would permit and regulate it. Existing laws in El Salvador provide that TSE judges are elected for a period of five years, during which they can only be removed from office in cases in which they have committed an official or common crime and as a result of the application of a procedure expressly established in the Constitution (supra para. 23). The Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25 and 26, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 288. 169 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 03, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 25, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, para. 125. 168