51 120. As a result of the indicated violations of the rights embodied in the Convention in this case, the Court must rule that the victims are ensured the enjoyment of their violated rights and freedoms. The Court observes that on November 17, 2000, the Congress of the Republic of Peru ordered that the justices should be reinstated in their respective functions (supra 26 and 56.30), and this has already been done. However, this Court considers that the State must also compensate the said justices for the salaries and benefits that they failed to receive (supra 56.31). It also considers that they must be compensated for the costs and expenses that they incurred owing to the measures taken to litigate the case before the legal system, in both the internal and the international jurisdiction. 121. Referring to material damages in the case of surviving victims, this Court has stated that, among other factors, the calculation of compensation should take into The Court considers that this criterion is account the time they did not work68. applicable in the instant case69 and, to this end, orders that the State should pay the amounts corresponding to the arrears of salary and other work-related benefits that correspond to the dismissed justices under its legislation. The State must also compensate the officials for any other damage that they may duly justify and which is a consequence of the violations declared in this judgment. Following the pertinent national procedures, the State must proceed to establish the respective compensatory amounts, so that the victims may receive them as soon as possible. 122. In accordance with consistent international jurisprudence, the Court considers that the fact that the victims obtain a favorable judgment, as the culmination of a proceeding that supports their claims, is, in itself, a form of satisfaction70. The case sub judice involves justices of a high court of constitutional justice who were dismissed. The case file confirms that the justices were reinstated in their functions on November 17, 2000 (supra 26 and 56.30), by a resolution of Congress, that is, by the very organ that had removed them from their functions. This resolution was published in the official gazette, El Peruano. The Court considers that these facts constitute per se a moral reparation; and this judgment entails a similar moral reparation. * * * 123. As this Court has indicated, the American Convention guarantees everyone access to justice to enforce their rights, and the States Parties have the obligation to prevent, investigate, identify and punish the masterminds and accessories of human rights violations71. Based on this obligation, the State has the duty to avoid and 68 Cf. Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 67, para. 59. 69 Cf. Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 67, para. 59. 70 Cf. Blake case. Reparations (Article 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, para. 55; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 67, para. 72; Castillo Páez case. Reparations (Article 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 84; Neira Alegría et al. case. Reparations (Article 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; and El Amparo case. Reparations (Article 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 62. 71 Cf. Blake case. Reparations, supra note 70, para. 65.