43 Cruz had a profound impact on their next of kin, both as regards affective, financial and work-related aspects (supra paras. 113 to 199), and in relation to their physical and mental health (infra paras. 195 to 202). 180. International case law has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.124 Nevertheless, owing to the circumstances of this case, the sufferings that the violations committed caused to the victims and their next of kin, the alterations in the living conditions of both families, and the other consequences of a non pecuniary nature, the Court finds it appropriate to order the payment of the following amounts as compensation for the non pecuniary damage suffered, based on the equity principle .125 i) US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) for Pelagia Mélida Contreras-Montoya; ii) US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for the mother, father and each child of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní; iii) US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for the mother and father of Consuelo García-Santa Cruz; and IV) US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for each sister or brother mentioned in paragraph 160 of this judgment. 181. In the case of Pelagia Mélida Contreras-Montoya and Ulises Cantoral-Huamaní, wife and brother of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní, the damage caused by the violations that have been proved was more intense. Pelagia Mélida Contreras-Montoya, together with Ulises CantoralHuamaní, tirelessly took charge of monitoring the internal investigations into the death of their husband and brother, and also gave testimony before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Without detriment to the efforts of other members of his family, Ulises Cantoral-Huamaní assumed a leading role in monitoring the investigations initiated at the domestic level during the 18 years that have elapsed. The Court notes that because he assumed the role of monitoring the investigations, Ulises Cantoral-Huamaní also had to distance himself from his family.126 182. Also, as the Court has noted (supra para. 115), Gertrudis Victoria Cantoral-Huamaní, who was pregnant at the time of the facts, was attacked in her home by strangers who broke into her home and threatened her in related to the investigations that her brother Ulises Cantoral-Huamaní was conducting.127 Regarding Eloy Cantoral-Huamaní, the Court observes that at the time of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní’s death, he was studying outside of the country and that, when he returned to Peru because of the death of his mother, an attempt was made to kidnap him. The Court further observes that this family member was the 124 Cf. Case of Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations (Art 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 72. Cf. also Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 8, para. 203; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 264; and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 219. 125 Cf. Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 8, paras. 204 and 205; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 219; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 72 para. 160. 126 Cf. sworn statement made by Vanessa Cantoral-Contreras (file of preliminary exception, merits, reparations and costs, pages 384 and 385). 127 Cf. Expert psychological report provided by Roberto Alfonso Gushiken-Miyagui on January 11, 2007 (file of preliminary exception, merits, reparations and costs, page 434.