12 additional compensation for non-pecuniary damage was granted to the victims in the Judgment of the instant case. Therefore, it held that the reparation ordered by the CEE is adequate and appropriate. 39. That the common interveners expressed their disagreement with the reparations ordered by the CEE and requested this Tribunal to order the body so established to follow the parameters of reparation for violations of rights provided in the Inter-American system. They noted, in the first place, that the wage ordered is less than what would correspond to them under the labor system of the private sector, to which the employees of the current Congress of the Republic are subjected and according to which the employees who were arbitrarily dismissed have the right to collect, as a minimum reparation, a compensation equivalent to one and a half ordinary and monthly wage for each complete year of services rendered, up to a maximum of twelve wages. According to that current law, if the dismissal of an employee were to be declared null and void, the employee would be reinstated into his post and have the right to the wages he stopped receiving since the date of his dismissal up to the effective reinstatement into his position. They also noted that the reparation ordered by the CEE is lower than the amount required by the Law setting the main guidelines on Administrative Career and Public Sector [Ley de Bases de Carrera Administrativa y del Sector Público], to which the victims were subjected at the moment of their dismissal and according to which they would be entitled to be reinstated into their posts and also, to a financial compensation higher than the one ordered by the CEE. In the second place, the common interveners emphasized that the compensation of two minimum wages as unique reparation, and according to Act N° 27.803, is the same reparation that the State proposed at the public hearing held during the consideration of the merits of the case, which was not adopted by this Tribunal. In the third place, the common interveners sustained that the reparation ordered by the CEE does not constitute a full restitution, and it neither “eliminates the effects of the violations committed”, as required under the case-law of this Tribunal. 40. That some victims alleged that it existed and still exists the possibility of progressively reinstating the victims into their positions. They note that with each public administration, new employees are incorporated into the Congress and that many former employees, victims of other collective dismissals, have been reinstated into their posts. Other victims also expressed that, according to an Article of Peru 21 newspaper of July 7, 2009, approximately 500 staff positions have been created in the Congress and that, therefore, it is not correct the Resolution of the CEE when it pointed out that "it is not, in fact, possible to reinstate all or some of the former employees who were irregularly dismissed". The State contested such information. 41. That this Court considers that, given the fact that it had already established that the body that made the decision did not comply with the requirement of independence so required, the other arguments presented as to the decision on the mertis shall not be discussed in this order. However, it is appropriate to recall that, under the terms of the Judgment, the determination of the legal consequences of the irregular and unjustified dismissals of the former employees of the Congress is independent from the decision made in the Judgment as to the non-pecuniary damages. In turn, such consequences must be determined by the pertaining domestic body, and the solution in each case must result in a fair restoration of the rights violated and the reparation so ordered must seek the greater restitution possible in relation to the situation of the victims, as if the facts of the instant case had never occurred and based on the specific circumstances of each one of these persons. C. Competent legal advisory services, free of charge, for the victims in the