63 229. The Court has developed the concept of circumstances in which it should be compensated.199 non-pecuniary damage and the 230. The Commission stated that the victims “suffered mental anguish, suffering, uncertainty and changes in their life, owing to the undue interference in their private life and correspondence; the arbitrary dissemination of their conversations and communications, and denial of justice for the events of which they were victims, even though the authors were fully identified, together with the personal and professional consequences of these facts.” It asked the Court to establish the amount of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage based on the equity principle. Despite the foregoing, it indicated that the representatives were in a better position to quantify the victims’ claims concerning the amount of the compensation. 231. In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives indicated that nonpecuniary damage arose from the interference in the private life of the victims and the subsequent dissemination of the material obtain by the illegal telephone interceptions; these were State acts that sought “to criminalize the social movement […] attempting to attribute [the authorship] of illegal acts to its members.” Consequently, these acts caused the victims anxiety and fear and gave rise to an environment of harassment against the social sectors to which they belonged. Lastly, they added that the victims also suffered owing to the lack of a proper investigation into the alleged harassment. In their final arguments brief, the representatives indicated that the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) corresponded to each victim as compensation for nonpecuniary damage. 232. The State affirmed that, despite the alleged non-pecuniary damage and mental harm to the victims, no criteria or elements had been produced that could be examined in order to prove this. It considered that symbolic reparation would constitute a form of nonpecuniary satisfaction, without the need to make a monetary payment. However, if the Court’s opinion differed, the State indicated that, when determining the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it should bear in mind that the victims were not even mentioned in the publication of the recorded conversations in the press. 233. This Court has established repeatedly that a judgment declaring the existence of a violation constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.200 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case, and the consequences that the violations committed may have caused to the victims, the Court finds it pertinent to determine the payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage established on the basis of the equity principle. 234. In order to establish the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the right to privacy and honor of Arlei José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral and Celso Aghinoni was violated owing to the interception, recording and dissemination of the telephone conversations (supra paras. 146 and 164). In addition, these individuals were victims of the violation of their rights to freedom of association, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection (supra paras. 180 and 214) 199 The Court has established that non-pecuniary damage “can include both the suffering and hardship caused to the direct victim and to his next of kin, the harm to values that are very significant for the individual, as well as the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.” Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al., supra note 28, para. 84; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 405, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 179. 200 Cf. Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 57; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 413, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 184.