15 violations against the victim and must presume that they had consequences on his wife and his children, who were not only separated from Mr. Cesti and understood and shared his distress, but also, there are indications that they were harassed and threatened, as a result of which the Court had to order provisional measures in their favor. The Court considers that these presumptions have not been disproved by the State and, therefore, it is pertinent to designate Mr. Cesti’s wife, Carmen Cardó Guarderas de Cesti, and his children, Margarita del Carmen Cesti Cardó de Lama and Gustavo Guillermo Cesti Cardó, beneficiaries of a reparation. 55. Accordingly, the Court believes that it is fair to grant Mr. Cesti’s wife a compensation of US$ 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) and each of his children a compensation of US$ 5.000,00 (five thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damage. 56. Regarding the victim’s father and mother-in-law, Gustavo Aurelio Cesti Ackermann and Judith Guarderas Cardó de Cardó, respectively, the Court assumes that they both suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violations against Mr. Cesti. However, taking into account the specific circumstances of the instant case, the Court considers that obtaining a judgment that supports the victim’s claims is, in itself, a form of reparation. IX OTHER FORMS OF REPARATION 57. In its brief on Reparations, the Commission requested the Court to order Peru to ensure Mr. Cesti the full enjoyment and exercise of his personal freedom and freedom of movement, by releasing him from the prison sentence that had been imposed, by lifting the prohibition to leave the country, and by allowing him to have the benefit of his property by annulling the embargo on his assets; that it attend and cover the costs of any adverse changes in Mr. Cesti’s health subsequent to his detention; and that it make reparation to him for damage to his honor and reputation, by a pecuniary compensation and the publication of announcements that make it clear that Mr. Cesti cannot be considered guilty of committing any crime, owing to the irregularity of the proceeding to which he was submitted. 58. The Court observes that, in a resolution of the Plenary of the Supreme Council of Military Justice of September 14, 2000, the State instructed that “the orders issued against [Mr. Cesti] that restricted his freedom and embargoed his assets be suspended” (supra 15). Consequently, with regard to the proceeding before the military justice system, the Commission’s request concerning the enjoyment and exercise of personal freedom, which includes the consequences that the imprisonment might have had on Mr. Cesti’s health and the lifting of the embargo on his assets, is unfounded. 59. With regard to the request concerning reparation for damage to Mr. Cesti’s reputation and honor, the Court believes that both the judgment on merits that was delivered in the instant case, in which it decided that Peru was responsible for violating his human rights, and also this judgment, constitute per se adequate reparation in this respect. X