65 reinstated in a temporary position, the pertinent public competitive selection processes should be conducted as soon as possible through an adequate and effective procedure.” In turn, the representative requested that “in order to secure the independence of the Judiciary” “the victims’ removal from office be set aside and reinstatement in their positions be effected.” 245. The State alleged that setting aside removal from office and reinstating the judges in their position “is no reparation” since if “the State’s responsibility were determined, the prior situation of the judges would be restored, and taking the facts regarding the appointment defects as proven” this, “far from being reparative, is clearly ‘condemnatory.’” 246. The Court has determined that the removal of the victims from their position was the result of a process that was in violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Consequently, taking into consideration that the irremovability of judges, whether they be temporary or permanent, must ensure that those who were arbitrarily removed from their position as judges be reinstated therein, the Court deems that as a reparation measure the State must reinstate the victims, if they so desire, in a position in the Judiciary in which they have the same rank, salary and related social benefits as they had prior to their removal. If, due to legitimate reasons that are beyond the will of the victims, the State could not reinstate them in the Judiciary within the term of six months as from notice of this Judgment, it shall pay each of the victims the amount set in equity of US $ 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or its equivalent amount in national currency, within eighteen months as from notice of this Judgment. 3.2. Publication of the Judgment and public apology 247. The Commission and the representative requested that the State “publicly apologize to the victims, through the same communications means that the State used to attack them” and that such public apology “be published for two successive Sundays in El Nacional and El Universal de Caracas newspapers, together with the operative paragraphs of the Judgment rendered by the Court.” 248. The State considered that the claims submitted by the victims were not relevant as “only on two occasions did the President refer to the instant case and not as the main subject of his speeches, but just as a statement typically made by the President of a democratic country, as he must refer to any situation which is in the public domain, just to cite an eminent national and international emblematic figure.” 249. As established by the Court in prior cases,260 as a measure of satisfaction the State must publish once in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper of widespread circulation, paragraphs 26 to 40, 42 to 45, 84 to 91 and 136 to 147 of this Judgment, together with the operative paragraphs thereof, without footnotes, within the term of six months as from notice of this Judgment. 250. As for the other claims, the Court considers that rendering this Judgment and ordering the publication of a section thereof in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper of widespread circulation, are in and of themselves sufficient reparation in the instant case and that ordering a public apology is not relevant. 260 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 179; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 18, para. 215, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 12, para. 192.