Advocate Ibrahima Kane, Counsel; and US$50 for Prosper Farama, Counsel. The Court therefore grants the claim for reimbursement in favour of the Applicants in the total amount of US$5,195,37 equivalent to 3,135,405.80 CFA F at Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) rate. Vil. MEASURES OF SATISFACTION AND GUARANTEES OF NON- REPETITION A) Measure of satisfaction: publication of the Court’s decision 95. In their Brief on Reparations, the Applicants prayed the Court to order “the publication of [its] Judgment in the Official Gazette, the national Daily Sidwaya and two of the most read private newspapers in the country, in order that the national public opinion, particularly judicial authorities and security officials [might] be aware of the wrong caused to the State and its human rights protection system by the poor functioning of its public justice and security services’. 96. In its Brief in Response, the Respondent State noted that, in principle, it finds no inconvenience with publishing the Court's decision, but argued that in international human rights law, “measures of satisfaction should not lead to humiliation of the State against which human rights violations had been established”. It submitted further that, in the instant case, the reasons given by the Applicants in support of their request for publication “are motivated more by a desire to humiliate the State of Burkina Faso and tarnish its image, than promoting and protecting human rights”. The Respondent State therefore prays the Court to reject the measure of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition as requested by the indirect victims as inadequate and irrelevant. 97. The Court notes that the principle itself of publication of the Court's decision is not in dispute between the parties. 98. The Court also notes that the publication of decisions of international human courts as a measure of satisfaction is of current practice®®. 35 See in particular: ACHR: Thus, rights in the case of Rev. Massacre du Plan de Sanchez v. Guatemala, (Reparations) Judgment of 19 November 2004, paras 102 and 103; IACHR: Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 12 August 2004, para. 248. (Preliminary Objections, _