138. The representative requested “a public apology for the damage to dignity and the life plan” by means of “the publication of a notice, of an appropriate size, in the national newspaper with the widest circulation.” 139. The State alleged that “it did not consider acts of public apology as an essential part of the integral reparation.” 140. The Court holds, as it has done in other cases,119 that the State publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in the Official Gazette in a legible and adequate font; (b) the Court’s official summary of this judgment, once, in a newspaper of broad national circulation, in a legible and adequate font and (c) the complete judgment, available for at least one year, on the official Web site of the Congress of Peru in a manner that is available to the public. The State must immediately inform the Court once it has published each of the above, irrespective of the period of one year to present its first report, as ordered in Operative Paragraph 13 of this judgment. C.2 National Registry of Dismissed Employees 141. Neither the Commission nor the representative referred to this matter. 142. The State claimed that the National Registry is the means to access the Special Benefits Program and to be recognized as a victim of an irregular dismissal. It pointed out that, to be part of National Registry, the request must have been presented within the period set out in Article 5 of Law 27803, although it is now possible, under some special circumstances, to do so under Law 31218. The State maintained that, by creating the National Registry, by recognizing the irregularity of the dismissals and by having published the lists in El Peruano, the dignity of the victims was recognized and a message of official severe disapproval of the human rights violations was sent. 143. The Court recognizes that the State established the National Registry, charged with determining the irregularity of the dismissals and as a means to access legal benefits. In the opinion of the Court, the State has made progress in repairing the victims with this measure. 144. The State has informed that the irregularity of the dismissals of 44 persons has not been determined due to circumstances that were not individualized. Consequently, these persons have not been able to access the legal benefits for irregularly dismissed employees. In the opinion of the Court, as was determined in Chapter VIII-2 of this judgment, the dismissals of those 44 persons were irregular since the State did not provide sufficient grounds to separate them from their employment and that the employees could not appeal the decision. Therefore, the Court orders the inclusion of the persons declared victims in this judgment in the National Registry (infra para. 154). D. Compensation D.1 Arguments regarding pecuniary damages 145. The Commission argued that “more than 20 years on from the employee dismissals in this case, the reinstatement of the victims in their old positions or relocation in other 119 Cf. Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, para. 128 and Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 209. 38