text: dissuading or preventing the commission of wrongful acts in the future, Nevertheless, satisfaction was distinguished from other remedies by its predominantly retributive rather than compensatory role. The Special Rapporteur stated that he did not find the retributive or punitive character of satisfaction incompatible with the sovereign equality of States. This belief of his was based upon the consideration that none of the forms UC satisfaction usually resorted to involved a direct action of the injured State &h-vi@ the offending State, They were either self-inflicted sanctions or sanctions administered by an international body. In either case they would - 212 -fall quite short of such smctioning measures as reprisala and retortion, where a penalty was directly infliotod by the injured State itself. 391. Ae to the choice of the form of satisfaction, the Special Rapporteur stated that the study of practice showed that the gravity of the wrongful act or the importance of the obligation breached and the degree of fault or wilful intent of the wrongdoer State were taken into account. 392. The fact, however, that the form of reparation in question had been in the past seriously abused by State6 which were in a more powerful position made it necessary to limit resort to satisfaction by the requirement that the forms of satisfaction should not include humiliating demands or the violation of sovereign equality of the wrongdoer State. 393. The Special Rapporteur felt that the literature selemed to support the view that safeguards against repetition was a form of satiefaotion, even though it did not introduce much clarity about the forms that such guarantees could take. The purpose of guarantees of non-repetition, the Special Rapporteur explained, was that sometimes the injured State believed that restoration of the situation to what it was before the occurrence of the
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international law and the concept of "satisfaction" as a form of remedy for wrongful acts committed by states. The focus is on the retributive and punitive aspects of satisfaction, as well as the limitations and requirements for its implementation. This suggests that the text is more related to the realm of international relations, law, and governance rather than a specific economic, social, or cultural issue.