137 385. As has been established, the conditions in which some family members and witnesses found the corpses reveals not only the atrocity and barbarity of the acts, but also that, in the least cruel of the situations, the victims were subjected to grave psychological torture by witnessing the execution of other individuals and anticipating their own fate, when they were subjected to the context of terror that occurred in La Granja on June 11, 1996, and in El Aro from October 22 to November 12, 1997. Also, the victims suffered damage as a result of the executions, the forced labor, the arbitrary detention, the loss of their homes, livestock and other possessions, the lack of support from the State authorities, and the fear of finding themselves defenseless. The absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts and the partial impunity constitute an additional source of suffering and anguish for the victims and their next of kin. All the foregoing, in addition to affecting their mental integrity, has had an impact on their social and labor relations, altered the dynamics of their families and the social network of the community. 386. With regard to the next of kin of the persons disappeared and deprived of life, the Court has presumed that the suffering or death of a person entails non-pecuniary damage for his children, spouse, companion, mother, father and siblings, so it is not necessary to prove this.273 387. International case law has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.274 However, owing to the gravity of the facts in the instant case and the situation of partial impunity, the intensity of the suffering caused to the victims, the alterations in their living conditions, and the other consequences of a non-pecuniary nature, the Court considers it necessary to order the payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, based on the principle of equity.275 388. When assessing the non-pecuniary damage cause in the case sub judice, the Court has borne in mind that the witnesses declared in their sworn statements made before notary public or in their statements before the Court that the damage caused to them is representative of the damage caused to the rest of the victims, most of whom lived in or near Ituango.276 389. Once again, the Court takes into account that, in the conciliation agreements reached in the administrative jurisdiction, compensation was established for nonpecuniary damage in favor of some of the next of kin of the victims executed and some of those who suffered loss of their property (supra para. 125(101)). Since this compensation was determined only in favor of the next of kin of these victims and it does not appear from the content of these agreements that the damage suffered 273 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 257; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 222, para. 229; and Maritza Urrutia case. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 169. 274 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 189; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 220; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 309. 275 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 189; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 220; and López Álvarez case, supra note 232, para. 200. 276 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 286.