48 US$408,000.00 (four hundred and eight thousand United States dollars) for a total of 51 months during which he claimed to have incurred loss of earnings.215 163. It should be emphasized that the Court has not received any probative elements that prove the income Mr. Neptune earned before the facts of this case, other than his own statement. The State has not offered any observations in this regard. Also no evidence has been provided of his alleged inability to work following his release; but, in the circumstances of the instant case, in addition to the two years and one month that he was unlawfully and arbitrarily detained, it is reasonable to suppose that the experience that Mr. Neptune had undergone did make it difficult for him to work once he was released. He himself stated that he has not left his house since he was released. Consequently, the Court refers to the equity principle and considers that the State must pay the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) to Yvon Neptune, as compensation for the income he did not receive owing to his imprisonment. 164. The State must pay the compensation for pecuniary damage in favor of Mr. Neptune within two years of notification of this judgment. b) Non-pecuniary damage 165. The Court will determine non-pecuniary damage, in accordance with the guidelines established in its case law.216 166. International case law has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. 217 Moreover, in the instant case the Court finds it necessary to establish compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered owing to the declared violations. 167. Regarding non-pecuniary damage, the representative asked the Court to take into account the different medical problems that Mr. Neptune suffered during his detention and hunger strike, such as hypertension, hypotension, inflammation, arrhythmia and a weak heart; the medical problems from which Mr. Neptune continues to suffer today, such as fatigue, indigestion, dizziness, weakness and reduced muscle mass; and also the psychological trauma related to the uncertainty about his life and physical safety, together with the stigma that he suffered during the long period of 25 months that his detention lasted,218 the unfounded charges against him, and the separation from his family.219 215 Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Yvon Neptune, supra note 6, para. 31 (folio 456). 216 Cf. Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname Reparations and costs, supra note 207, paras. 52, 54, 75, 77, 86 and 87; Cantoral Benavides v. Perú. Reparations and costs. Judgment December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 53 and 57, and Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 47, para. 141; Escué Zapata v. Colombia, supra note 45, para. 147, and Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Perú, supra note 50, para. 175. 217 Cf. Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 72; Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 38, para. 148, and The Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 36, para. 195. See also, El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35. 218 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the representatives, supra note 60, para. 85 (folio 288). 219 Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Yvon Neptune, supra note 6, para. 28 (folio 455).