goal of determining whether, in view of the principle of complementarity, a remission to the domestic mechanisms is appropriate.114 135. The Court has already analyzed the situation of dismissed congressional workers in two judgments: Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al. v. Peru, of 2006, and Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, of 2015. In the former, the Court ordered the State to “establish, as soon as possible, an independent and impartial body with powers to decide, in a binding and final manner, whether or not the said persons were dismissed in a justified and regular manner from the Congress of the Republic, and to establish the respective legal consequences, including, if applicable, the relevant compensation based on the specific circumstances of each individual constituted person.”115. The State complied by establishing a “Special Commission of Evaluation” with the purpose of deciding “in a binding and final manner” whether the victims were justly dismissed. In April 2009, the Special Commission declared that 257 victims in the case had been irregularly and unjustly dismissed.116 In line with the Court’s order, the State also established the National Registry, charged with determining the irregularity of the dismissals of the other employees and as a means to access the legal benefits for those irregularly dismissed. The State, thus, has made progress by executing the Court’s order and the effects of those decisions have spread to all the employees, including those persons declared victims in this case. 136. Therefore, the Court recognizes and welcomes the State’s efforts to repair the employees irregularly dismissed during the 1990s, which are the consequence of the decisions adopted by the Court. It, therefore, considers that the mechanism of domestic reparation, as well as the benefits that have already been granted, may be taken into account with respect to the obligation to integrally repair the violations declared in this judgment.117 In setting the corresponding reparations and within the framework of its attributions and in compliance with its obligations under Article 63 of the Convention, the Court shall take into account, where appropriate, the extent and the results of the programs adopted by the State domestically.118 C. Measures of Satisfaction C.1 Publication and dissemination of the judgment 137. The Commission did not present arguments on this matter. 114 Cf. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325, para. 328 and Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 208. 115 Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra, para. 148. Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance of the Judgment. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of September 1, 2021, para. 5. 116 Mutatis mutandis, Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 214; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 219; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 339; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 206, Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 548 and Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 209. 117 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 343 and Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 209. 118 37