42 Considerations of the Court 95. The Court deems that case law serves as orientation to establish principles regarding this matter, although it cannot be invoked as a an unambiguous criterion, because each case must be analyzed in accordance with its own characteristics.60 It should be added that in the instant case the State has acknowledged its international responsibility. 96. International case law has repeatedly established that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.61 Nevertheless, due to the grave circumstances of the instant case, the intensity of the suffering caused to the victim and his next of kin, the change in the conditions of existence of the family and the other non-pecuniary consequences they suffered, the Court deems it pertinent for compensation to be paid, in fairness, for non-pecuniary damage.62 In previous cases, this Court has pointed out that when there is acknowledgment of responsibility by the State, evidence is not required to demonstrate the damage caused.63 97. In the sub judice case, the representatives of the next of kin of the victim and the Commission referred to various non-pecuniary damage caused to Walter David Bulacio and his next of kin by the facts. Such damage includes physical and psychological suffering of the victim as a consequence of his detention and death; and the suffering caused by lack of communication of the detention of Walter David Bulacio to his parents, allegations that Walter David Bulacio was a youth with doubtful behavior, and lack of investigation and punishment of those responsible for what took place. 98. As the State has recognized, Walter David Bulacio was detained by agents of the State, and died one week after his detention, because of “an inappropriate exercise of the duty of custody” by the State (supra 32). It is part of human nature 60 Cf., Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 30, para. 82; “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 30, para. 104; and Blake Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). January 22, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 48, para. 54. 61 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 172; “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 4, para. 180; Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 74; Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 30, para. 83; Bámaca Velásquez Case, Reparations, supra note 30, para. 60; Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 30, para. 57; Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 4, para. 166; Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 30, para. 51; “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales at al.), Reparations, supra note 30, para. 88; and “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 30, para. 105. Likewise, Cf. Eur.. Court HR, Ruiz Torija v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-A, para. 33; Eur. Court HR, Boner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-B, para. 46; Eur. Court HR, Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C, para. 45; Eur. Court H.R., Darby v. Sweden judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, para. 40; Eur. Court H.R., Wassink v. The Netherlands judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A, para. 41; Eur. Court H.R., Koendjbiharie v. The Netherlands, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 185-B, para. 34; and Eur. Court H.R., Mc Callum v. The United Kingdom judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183, para. 37. 62 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 172; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 99; and Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 30, para. 83. 63 Cf., Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 30, para. 85; Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations, supra note 47, para. 49; and Aloeboetoe et al. Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). September 10, 1993 Judgment. Series C No. 15, para. 52.