C. Measures of satisfaction 141. The Commission did not make specific recommendations on this point. 142. The State alleged that the Commission did not specify the type of reparations requested nor did it explain why these should be ordered. It argued that this lack of precision violated its right of defense, since it made it impossible for it to challenge such requests. 143. As it has done in other cases, 152 the Court orders the State to publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: a) the official summary of the judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette, in a legible and appropriate font; b) the official summary of the judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a newspaper with wide national circulation, and in a legible and appropriate font, and c) this judgment, in its entirety, available for at least one year, on an official website of the State, in a manner accessible to the public and from the home page of the website. The State shall immediately inform the Court once it has issued each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year term granted to present its first report as ordered in the ninth operative paragraph of this judgment. D. Guarantees of non-repetition 144. The Court notes that the violation of the right to judicial protection, with respect to the appeals filed against the declaration of illegality of the strike, was due to a lack of clarity in the regulations governing this matter (supra para. 85). Thus, it finds it necessary to order the State, within two years, to clearly specify or regulate, through legislative or other measures, the remedy, procedure and judicial competence for challenging the declaration of illegality of a strike. 145. With respect to the regulations governing the right to strike, the Court reiterates that the different State authorities are obliged to exercise ex officio control of conventionality between the domestic provisions and the American Convention, within the framework of their respective competencies and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the domestic authorities must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation made of it by the InterAmerican Court, the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention and, in particular, the standards established in this judgment. 153 E. Other measures requested 146. The Commission requested, in general terms, that the State adopt the necessary measures of non-repetition to prevent similar events from occurring in the future. In particular, it requested that the rules of due process be applied in processes for the dismissal of civil servants, in accordance with the standards of the Convention and that domestic legislation and practices be adapted so that restrictions on workers’ right to strike, which require a prior favorable vote by the workers, comply with international standards. 147. The State pointed out that in 1999, Congress issued the Law of the Judiciary Service for the purpose of regulating labor relations between the Judiciary and its employees and officials. With regard to the disciplinary process and the dismissal of workers, Article 65 establishes that: “The disciplinary sanctions provided for in this law shall be imposed by the corresponding unit of 152 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001, Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 185. 153 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 206. 40