45 that it is reasonable that in the more than seven years that have gone by since her dismissal, Mrs. Reverón Trujillo would have taken measures to reduce the damage caused, sets in equity the amount of US$150,000.00 (one hundred and fifty thousand dollars of the United States of America) that the State shall pay within a one-year term computed as of the notification of this Judgment. 3. Non-pecuniary damage 175. Below, the Court will determine the reparations for non-pecuniary damage, as it has understood it in its jurisprudence.180 176. First, the Court points out that the Commission did not request that the victim be compensated for non-pecuniary damages. Second, even when it decided that the arguments presented by the representatives did not lead to the conclusion that the State violated Article 5 of the Convention, it did decree the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 25(1) and 23(1)(c) of the same, which entail a non-pecuniary damage. In this sense, the Court has held that non-pecuniary damage results evident, since it is part of human nature itself that any person who suffers a violation of their human rights experiments suffering. Now, that suffering does not necessarily have to be repaired with money. Depending on the specific case an adequate reparation may simply be the issuing of the conviction of the State by this Court.181 177. In the present case, the Court shall assess if it is appropriate to order economic reparation in favor of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo, which the representatives estimate at US$ 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America). To this effect, the Tribunal shall assess the evidence provided, which would basically be the victim’s statement at the public hearing and a medical certificate. The analysis of this evidence is independent of the considerations offered in Chapter IX supra, since in the present chapter only the consequences of the violations declared are examined and not any facts that would constitute a new violation. 178. At the public hearing the victim stated that the removal for her position “changed [her] life,” she went from being a “well-respected” judge “in the Judicial Power to being a sore spot for the Judicial Power,” she “isolat[ed] herself from the outside world”, she was not able to sleep and she left the country “to try to recover [her] emotional health.”182 179. Regarding the medical certificate, the professional who issued it mentions he looked over Mrs. Reverón Trujillo from the year 2002 to 2009, and that the victim 180 “[N]on-pecuniary damages may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and their next of kin, the detriment to very significant personal values, as well as non-pecuniary alterations in the conditions of existence of the victim or their next of kin. Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damages, it can only be the object of compensation, […], through payment of an amount of money or the delivery of goods or services that may be valued in monetary terms, which the Tribunal will establish […] in terms of equity, as well as through the realization of acts or works that are public in their scope or effects, which result in the acknowledgment of the victim’s dignity and avoid the repetition of violations to human rights,” Cf. Case of Neira Alegría v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 57; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 405, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 15, para. 179. 181 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 130; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 131, and Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 126. 182 Cf. statement offered by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo, supra note 176.