to start exercising his profession again for two reasons: one, owing to the emotional crisis and, the other, because he had lost his clientele; thus [he] had to cut [himself] off completely from the exercise of his profession and any other similar activity.” Mr. Nogales Izurieta stated that “[t]he facts affected [him] personally, causing […] serious psychological depression that turned into a state of stress and anguish, […] emotional problems that even affected [his] health and this situation even affected [his] personal relationships. In addition, having moved to Quito, this caused an emotional crisis in [his] family.” Lastly, Mr. Rojas Bajaña stated that his “health was seriously affected as a result of the negative events, [and …] also [his] financial situation, having lost [his] work and [his] income.” He also indicated that “the health of [his] wife and children were severely affected, […] owing to the negative psychological, financial and health effects that affected [him] and still affect [him] today.” 305. The Court considers it evident that the termination of their functions, the dismissal by means of impeachment proceedings, and the way in which this occurred, caused nonpecuniary damage to the judges, which was manifested by symptoms such as the depression that some of them suffered or the feelings of shame and uncertainty. The judges also suffered non-pecuniary damage because they could not work as judges of the Judiciary, and receive a remuneration for their work that would allow the victims and their families to enjoy a similar way of life to the one they had before the termination and the impeachment proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court underlines that, in this case, only the statements of the victims were provided as evidence of non-pecuniary damage. However, when weighing all the factors to determine the amount for non-pecuniary damage, the Court takes into account its case law in the matter. Accordingly, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for each victim, and grants a time frame of one year for the payment of this amount. D. Other measures of reparation Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 306. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “[t]o acknowledge publicly […] the violations declared in the present case.” 307. The representatives requested, as other measures of satisfaction, that the Court order the State “[t]o place a plaque with the names of the victims in this case, in recognition of their struggle to defend the institutional framework and democracy, in a visible place in the Constitutional Court’s building.” They also asked that “it remove any record of the passage through the institution (in the corridors, plaques etc.) of the persons who usurped the functions of the members […] of the Constitutional Tribunal.” 308. The representatives also asked that: (i) “it be made mandatory to study the Court’s judgment in this case in the Judicial School and that it be incorporated into the School’s curriculum”; (ii) the “Center for the Study and Dissemination of Constitutional Law, which is attached to the Constitutional Court, must disseminate and promote the exercise of the independence of each judge, by different means, such as the organization of forums and academic events, and the publication of books or leaflets”; (iii) “the Judicial School should incorporate a compulsory course on the theory and practice of judicial independence and impartiality, in keeping with current legal doctrine and international human rights standards,” and (iv) “the Council of the Judiciary should consider it a serious offense if any agent of justice should seek to harm judicial independence.” 88