56 223. In relation to non-pecuniary damage the victim considered it “justifiable [that the Court] determine a reasonable compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered to his image and reputation as a political activist, because he was prevented from participating as a candidate for the presidency of Mexico, as well as the damage to his life project and political trajectory.” Among other considerations, he indicated that, “the non-pecuniary damage he has suffered […] owing to the current wording of the Mexican electoral laws that prevented him from competing as an independent candidate for the presidency of the Republic is much greater [than the pecuniary damage]. The damage encompasses issues as extensive as discredit in certain academic and intellectual circles in Mexico, which did not understand how someone specialized in the functioning of Mexican electoral policy did not know that such candidacies were impossible, to pending debts that he would never be able to settle with the media and public security agencies […]. The non-pecuniary damage did not cease with the 2006 elections, but has continued throughout the litigation before the Commission and [the] Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In particular, in recent months, there have been attacks in the media coinciding with decisive moments in the juridical proceedings, which can hardly be attributed to mere chance.” Lastly, Mr. Castañeda Gutman indicated that he “left it to [the Court] to consider the facts invoked previously and those that have occurred recently in relation to the damage caused […].” 224. The State indicated that it was legally inadmissible to pay compensation for nonpecuniary damage. Regarding the alleged effect on the victim's life project, the State indicated that “ the petitioner had the same access to his political aspirations as all Mexican citizens [and that] it was necessary to point out that the results of any presidential election process are extremely unpredictable, because they involve different political, economic and social factors. Consequently, it is an unreasonable expectation of the petitioner, whose aptitudes, potential and aspirations the State is not judging, to establish a life project subject to a series of conditions of very diverse origin and uncertain achievement, above all, the will of the Mexican electorate.” The State concluded that, in any case, the judgment itself could be sufficient reparation for the non-pecuniary damage. 225. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and the assumptions under which it should be compensated.75 In the instant case, the Court observes that the victim based his request for compensation for non-pecuniary damage on the alleged violation of the exercise of his right to be elected established in Article 23 of the American Convention. The Court has not found that this human right has been violated in the instant case, so that there is no non-pecuniary damage arising from it that requires a measure of reparation. C) MEASURES OF SATISFACTION AND GUARANTEES OF NON-REPETITION 226. The Court will determine the measures of satisfaction that seek to repair the violation declared in this judgment that are not of a pecuniary nature and will order measures of public scope or repercussion. i) Obligation to adopt measures (legislative and administrative reforms, etc.) 75 “Non-pecuniary damage can include both the suffering and hardship caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the harm of objects of value that are very significant to the individual, and also changes, of a non pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or his family.” Cf. Case of Neira Alegría v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 57; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 175; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 19, para. 237.