89 310. The Court’s jurisprudence has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and the cases in which compensation therefore is due. Non-pecuniary damage may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victims and to those close to them, as well as non-pecuniary changes in the conditions of existence of the victim or the victim’s family. Since it is not possible to assign a specific monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, it can only be compensated, in two ways. First, by payment of an amount of money or delivery of goods or services that can be quantified in monetary terms, which the Court will establish by rationally applying judicial discretion and in terms of fairness. Second, by carrying out acts or works that are public in their scope or repercussion, such as broadcasting a message of official disapproval of the human rights violations involved and of commitment to efforts to avoid their repetition and to ensure acknowledgment of the victim’s dignity, among other aspects.317 311. International jurisprudence has repeatedly established that a judgment may constitute per se a form of reparation.318 However, considering the circumstances of the case sub judice, the Court considers it appropriate to set, in equity, an amount as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.319 312. In determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in this case, it is necessary to consider that Jesus Tranquilino Vélez Loor was subjected to cruel, inhumane, and degrading confinement conditions, which caused him intense physical pain and emotional suffering, as well as physical and mental consequences that endure (supra paras. 222 and 227). 313. Furthermore, the proceedings conducted against him did not comply with the requirements of due process (there was arbitrary detention and lack of judicial guarantees). Naturally, a person subjected to arbitrary detention endures profound suffering,320 which is aggravated if the facts related to mistreatment and alleged acts of torture to which the victim was subjected, are not investigated. For these reasons, the Tribunal deems that these kind of violations cause non-pecuniary damage to those who suffer them.321 314. Consequently, the Court deems pertinent to determine, in equity, the amount of US$ 20.000,00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Mr. Vélez Loor, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. D. Costs and Expenses 315. The Commission requested the Court, once the representatives of the victim have been heard, to order the State of Panama “the reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred in pursuing this case at the domestic level, as well as those arising from its processing before the Inter-American System of Human Rights.” The representatives, moreover, pointed out that in his search for justice, Mr. Vélez Loor incurred in many expenses arising from the proceedings at the domestic and 317 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 298, para. 84; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra note 20, footnote 547, and Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 60, para. 218. 318 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 28, para. 282, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 278. 319 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al., supra note 318, para. 56; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 28, para. 282, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 278. 320 Cf. Case of Bulacio, supra note 102, para. 98; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 103, para. 217, and Case of Tibi, supra note 27, para. 244. 321 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 27, para. 244.