141 6.2. Non-pecuniary damage 579. In its jurisprudence, the Court has determined different ways in which nonpecuniary damage can be repaired.547 6.2.1. Moral damage 580. In their brief, the representatives listed the non-pecuniary effects suffered by the victims’ next of kin and quantified the moral damage as follows: (i) US$120,000.00 (one hundred and twenty thousand United States dollars) for the mothers of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez; (ii) US$150,000.00 (one hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) for the mother of Claudia Ivette González; (iii) US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for each sibling of the victims, and (iv) US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) for each of the other next of kin. 581. As compensation for the suffering caused to the three victims’ next of kin, owing to the irregularities committed by the public officials who took part in the investigation of the three cases up until 2004, the State offered to provide the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Mexican pesos to each family member. 582. International case law has established repeatedly that a judgment declaring a violation of rights constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.548 Nevertheless, the Tribunal finds it pertinent to determine the payment of compensation for nonpecuniary damage in favor of the next of kin of Mss. Herrera, González and Ramos, considered victims of the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 583. The Court concludes that the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin was and continues to be affected by three factors: (i) the deprivation of liberty, illtreatment and death suffered by Mss. Herrera, González and Ramos; (ii) the irregularities in the investigation conducted by the authorities and the impunity, and (iii) the harassment suffered by the next of kin, indicated in paragraph 440 supra. 584. Taking the foregoing into account, as well as the contents of paragraph 560 supra, and considering that the State’s offer to pay US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to each of the victims’ next of kin is reasonable, the Court decides to use this sum as a basis, and (i) to include the next of kin who were declared victims in this case and who were not considered in the State’s offer; (ii) to increase this amount by US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars) for each of the next of kin, as a form of reparation for the non-pecuniary damage produced by the violations that the State has not acknowledged; (iii) to increase the resulting amount 547 Non-pecuniary damage may comprise the pain and suffering caused to the direct victim and the next of kin, the impairment of values that are significant to an individual, and also the non-pecuniary damage caused by alterations in the living conditions of the victim and their next of kin. Since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary amount to such damage, it can only be compensated by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services with a pecuniary value established by the Court, in equity, as well as by acts or works of a public scope or impact designed to acknowledge the dignity of the victim and avoid the occurrence of human rights violations. (Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 218, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 111). 548 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 30, para. 219, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 100.