153. The Court has found that Mr. Mohamed did not have access to a remedy which, in line with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, would have allowed for a review of the judgment that declared him guilty and convicted him for the first time in a second instance criminal proceeding for the crime of manslaughter (supra paras. 90 to 117). Therefore, according to Article 63(1) of the Convention, which provides that “[w]hen the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be guaranteed the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated,” the Court orders the State to: a) adopt the measures necessary to guarantee Mr. Oscar Alberto Mohamed the right to appeal the conviction handed down by the First Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters on February 22, 1995, in accordance with the conventional parameters established in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention (supra paras. 90 to 117). This measure must be complied with within six months from the date of notification of this judgment, and b) adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the legal effects of the aforesaid conviction, and especially his criminal record, remain suspended until a decision on the merits has been issued once the right to appeal is guaranteed, pursuant to the preceding paragraph. C) Judgment Measure of satisfaction: publication and dissemination of the 154. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to publish this judgment “in, at least, two national daily newspapers with wide circulation.”. 155. The State did not refer to this measure of reparation. 156. International jurisprudence, and in particular the jurisprudence of this Court, has repeatedly established that a judgment is per se a form of reparation.122 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances sub judice, and having regard to the harm caused to Mr. Oscar Alberto Mohamed, as well as the non-pecuniary consequences derived from the violations of the Convention to his detriment, the Court considers, as it has in other cases,123 that the State must publish, within six-months as from notification of this Judgment: a) the official summary of this Judgment issued by the Court, once only, in the Official Gazette; b) the official summary of this Judgment issued by the Court, once only, in a newspaper with wide national circulation; and c) this Judgment, in its entirety, to be posted on an official website for a period of one year. D) Other measures requested 157. Furthermore, both the Commission and the representatives made requests regarding the adoption of legal measures or of another nature. 158. In this regard, the Commission asked the Court to order Argentina to “provide legislative and other measures to ensure the effective implementation of the right Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 254. 122 123 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 254. 42