77 285. Likewise, in his statement presented by means of an affidavit, Mr. Francisco Arriaga Alonzo expressed that “we were afraid and lacked confidence,” and added that “one feels disappointment.” Similarly, the Court observes that in his statement in the public hearing before the Court, Ms. Felicita Herenia Romero Ramírez expressed that “we feel deceived, […] I repeat, also angry and sad.” 286. Based on the foregoing, it is inferred that the victims in the instant case suffered non-pecuniary damages, evidenced through frustration and other psychological and emotional damage derived from the lack of justice and continued impunity of the instant case to date, 15 years after the investigation on the facts of the massacre began. 287. As previously indicated, the Court values the compensations performed by the State in the framework of the friendly settlement agreement before the Commission (supra para. 281. However, it considers that, as established in the instant Judgment, the victims have suffered non-pecuniary damages, through the infringement of their mental and moral integrity, derived from the lack of justice and impunity that persists in the instant case to this day (supra para. 213 and 217). The Court deems it necessary to grant the victims an additional compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, as of April 1, 2000, and in conformity with the violations declared in the instant Judgment. 288. Regarding the then child survivors, expert witness Marco Antonio Garabito Fernández, in the expert opinion provided before a notary public, expressed that “[t]hey became strangers when the link, privacy, and feelings of belonging to a family and community were broken. In a lot of cases this feeling of abandonment was not compensated by the substitute families […] as in the case of Ramiro Osorio Cristales”. Additionally, this expert witness indicated that “the construction of a healthy individuality presupposes having a group of points of reference which, in this case, are violently destroyed […], as there is a need to fight the dissonance caused by having to life in a new family, […] while denying the previous experiences with the family of origin, which is no longer present. This dissonant duality is a source of permanent conflict and re-traumatizing of the lost childhood.” 289. Ramiro Antonio Osorio Cristales himself, in the statement provided in the public hearing before the Court, highlighted that “all day I said to myself that I had to endure because I survived for a purpose, and that purpose was to be the voice of those who are no longer here.” Additionally, he indicated that he “would return to Guatemala, but I will never walk around with peace, I am afraid, primarily because the murderers are still free.” 290. In this regard, the Court has already established in its constant jurisprudence that a judgment declaring a violation of human rights constitutes per se a means of reparation282, which it reiterates in this case. 291. The Court observes that the State, as a consequence of its recognition of international responsibility during the procedure before the Commission, granted an amount for reparations and committed to combat the impunity of the case, which has not been fulfilled to date. This demonstrates that the denial of justice has deepened the suffering of the 155 victims in the instant case (supra para. 213 and 217), therefore, the Court determines that the configuration of a non-pecuniary damage susceptible to reparation, by means of substitution, through a compensation. 282 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 Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 219, and Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 28, para. 100.