40 147. The Court must now determine the compensation for non pecuniary damages pursuant to the Court’s case law.125 148. The State acknowledged that "even though [the] life of [Germán Escué] does not have a monetary equivalent [...] it is willing to carry out a series of acts leading to a total compensation for the past events,” and it also suggested an extrajudicial compromise agreement in order to set the compensation for the account of non pecuniary damage. If the case a settlement is not reached, the State requests the Court to set the compensations taking into account the parameters of compensation applied in the cases of the Ituango Massacres and the Pueblo Bello Massacres. By the same token, it requested the Court to consider that "the mortal rests of the victim were delivered to his family and the victim had no Christian burial.” The agreement mentioned by the State was not entered into or has not been informed to the Tribunal. 149. The case law of this Tribunal has repeatedly established that a judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.126 However, in view of the circumstances of the instant case, the suffering that the violations have caused to the victims and their next of kin, the changes in the standards of living of the victim’s next of kin, and in light of the other nonpecuniary consequences they bore, the Court deems it appropriate to award compensation for non pecuniary damages, assessed on equitable grounds.127 150. As the Court has held in similar cases,128 the non pecuniary damage sustained by Germán Escué Zapata is evident, since it is human nature that a person subjected to illegal detention, ill-treatment and extrajudicial execution suffers from deep pain, anguish, terror, impotence and insecurity. As a result, this damage need not be proven. 151. As to the relatives of Germán Escué Zapata, it has been established that they are victims of the violation of human rights, under the terms of paragraphs 80, 96 and 111 of this Judgment. 152. The testimonies of the next of kin of the victim rendered in this proceedings show how the facts of the case impacted on the different spheres of their lives: Physical, mental, family and financial health. In this sense, the victim’s daughter stated before this Tribunal that when they told her what happened to this father “it was very sad everything I heard, it made me feel […] very bad […] the suffering of my father, my uncles, of my family” and since then, “when they talk about my father, I always feel bad; sometimes, it makes me cry; I have being crying alone, it has been very tough for me.”129 Furthermore, the victim’s daughter had to work since she was 10 years of age in order to help her mother to deal with the difficulties she was facing. In her own words: “Working was very hard, on Saturdays 125 Cf. Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. Reparations. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 53 and 57. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 216; Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 17, para. 430. 126 Cf. Case of Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations, (Article 63(1) American Convention of Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 72; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 203, and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 264. 127 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala; Reparations(Article 63(1) American Convention of Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 219; Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 17, para. 431. 128 Cf. Case of Neira-Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 27, para. 57, Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 256, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 217. 129 Cf. Statement rendered by Myriam Zapata Escué in the public hearing held before the Court on January 29 and 30, 2007.