63 State shall pay this amount directly to the beneficiaries within the term of one year as from notice of this Judgment. 2.2. Non-pecuniary damages 237. As in prior cases, the Court will now determine reparations for non-pecuniary damages.250 238. The Commission considered it “relevant to redress the consequences of the removal from office suffered by the victims” and highlighted “the importance that establishing the truth of the facts regarding their removal has for [them].” It further stated that it must be taken into consideration that “as a result of the decision of the CORJS the victims have been prevented from exercising judicial functions in the future.” 239. The representative alleged that the victims had to “endure for months a systematic campaign of intimidating actions, such as the detention of Alfredo Romero and the search of the seat of the First Court, as well as all types of verbal aggressions,” and that many of those attacks “were launched by the President of the Republic through radio and television speeches, in which he called them ‘oligarchs,’ ‘corrupt,’ ‘bandits,’ ‘coup-plotters,’ etc.” According to the representative, the social and family life of the victims “was seriously affected, as a result of the stigma of having been removed from office for allegedly being corrupt and unsuitable for their positions.” The three victims endured great suffering as “their professional careers were unfairly curtailed” and “despite their devotion to the Judiciary, they had been disgracefully removed from their positions and were no longer able to have their candidacies considered to sit on the [STJ].” The representative further considered that the damage suffered by the victims “seriously affected their professional and academic reputation” and “impaired their self-esteem and their family relationships” as “it went into the public domain.” The representative requested as non-pecuniary damages for each of the victims the amount of US $ 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or its equivalent amount in national currency. 240. The State considered that it had not been proven that “the victims had to live for months with the stigma of enduring verbal aggression,” nor that “the representatives were victims of labor or social discrimination regarding their academic or personal activities,” since they did not prove “that the university or teaching institutions where they work had imposed sanctions on them as a consequence of the removal from their positions as temporary judges of the First Court.” 250 “[N]on-pecuniary damages may comprise both the pain and suffering caused to the direct victim and to his next of kin, the impairment of values that are significant to persons, as well as the nonpecuniary damages caused by the modification of the living conditions of the victim and his next of kin. As it is not possible to assess an accurate amount to measure such damage, in order to provide for integral reparation to the victims, said damages could only be compensated in two ways […] with the payment of amounts of money or the delivery of goods or services susceptible of having a pecuniary value, which the Court may determine […] in terms of equity, as well as by means of acts or works which may have a public impact, […] such as a commitment to avoid such violations in the future, in an attempt to repair the reputation of the victims, the acknowledgment of the victims’ dignity or the relief of their next of kin,” Cf. Case of Neira Alegría v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 57; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 18, para. 141, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 12, para. 175.