109 Bámaca Velásquez, this amount to be distributed among Jennifer Harbury, José León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia and Josefina, both Bámaca Velásquez. They further requested US$80,000.00 (eighty thousand United States dollars) for moral damages to Jennifer Harbury, US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for those to José León Bámaca Hernández, and US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) to each of the sisters of the victim. Arguments of the Commission 58. The Commission agrees with the essence of the arguments of the representatives of the victims, as well as with the amounts requested. Arguments of the State 59. The State expressed that it shared the view of the Commission that it is difficult to calculate the moral detriment to the victims; nevertheless, it argued that, as there was no strong emotional tie between Mr. Bámaca Velásquez and his next of kin, compensation should be set at Q50,000.00 (fifty thousand quetzales) for “the direct victims” and Q25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand quetzales) for the father and sisters of the victims, for a total sum of Q125,000.00 (one hundred and twenty-five thousand quetzales). Considerations of the Court 60. International case law has repeatedly stated that conviction is per se a form of reparation.61 However, due to the grave circumstances of the instant case, the intensity of the suffering that the respective facts caused to the victim, Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, and also to his next of kin, alterations of the conditions of existence of the victim and his next of kin, and other non pecuniary or non monetary consequences caused to the latter, the Court deems that it must order payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damages, in accordance with equity.62 61. In the sub judice case, the representatives of the victims and the Commission referred to various types of non pecuniary damages caused by the facts in the instant case to Mr. Bámaca Velásquez and his next of kin: the physical and psychological suffering of the deceased victim; the phenomenon of forced disappearance and its aftermath of detention, torture, denial of justice, lack of investigation of the facts and of punishment of those responsible, and not knowing the whereabouts of the mortal remains of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez, have caused 61 See Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 57; Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 7, para. 166; Cesti Hurtado Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 51; Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 88; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 105. In this same sense, see Eur. Court HR, Ruiz Torija v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-A, para. 33; Eur. Court HR, Boner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-B, para. 46; Eur. Court HR, Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C, para. 45; Eur Court H.R., Darby judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, para. 40; Eur. Court H.R., Wassink judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A, para. 41; Eur. Court H.R., Koendjbiharie, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 185-B, para. 34; and Eur. Court H.R., McCallum judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183, para. 37. 62 See Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 57; Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 7, para. 167; and Cesti Hurtado Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 51.