- 98 in fairness, the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for each of the victims, Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Chévez de la Rocha, Ramón Barrios Maldonado and Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, for consequential damage. D.2) Non-pecuniary damage 319. The representatives indicated that “there had been an autonomous effect on the mental integrity and private life of Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, Ramón Enrique Barrios and Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, because they were subject to stigmatization and discrimination by public officials, and also due to the stress, suffering, frustration and uncertainty caused by the dismissals.” Accordingly, they asked that, based on the circumstances of the case and the harm suffered by the victims, the Court determine, in fairness, compensation for nonpecuniary damage for each of them. 320. International case law has established that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.470 However, this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his family, the impairment of values that are very significant for the individual, and also the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”471 321. The Court notes that, in the statements made by the victims, they referred to their suffering and affliction owing to the violations declared in this case. Thus, Mr. Chévez de la Rocha stated that “the fact that a disciplinary case was brought against [him had] a strong impact, especially when the dismissal became final.” Losing his tenure as a judge “upset [him] and, at the beginning, his family seemed not to understand it”; he felt guilty, he was criticized, he was worried about the debts he had contracted and his children’s studies. He also stated that he had accumulated a “high level of stress […] over these four years and this has affected [his] health.” He indicated that he had been diagnosed with generalized arthritis and the situation had even led to conflictive relationships within his household, “circumstances that [they] had responded to by paying for psychosocial assistance for [his] wife, [his] children and [him]self.” He stated that the dismissal had affected him psychologically; he “feels that this situation has deprived [his] family of a better quality of life and [… he] constantly feels guilty and even though [he] is able to overcome this – because [he] is convinced that [his] stance was correct – it still annoys” him. In addition, his wife testified that the disciplinary proceeding and her husband’s dismissal “was really traumatic; he became more anxious, irritable.” She indicated that her husband became depressed because he had not been reinstated and the stress had affected his health. 322. Tirza Flores Lanza testified that “the disciplinary proceeding […] was a time of much uncertainty and affected [her] dignity. Following the dismissal [her] life changed completely; [she] felt totally disoriented and extremely worried about the maintenance of [her] family”; she felt “great fear [and] frustration.” She stated that “over the […] years since [she] was dismissed from the Judiciary, [she had] felt very sad and depressed on many occasion owing to the frustration caused by the fact that, because [she] did the right thing, [… she had been] expelled from [her] place of work as a result of accusations that have damaged [her] honor.” She stressed that she had “been subjected to many offensive and denigrating insults […] which have affected [them] greatly.” In addition, she stated that her husband, Adán Guillermo López Lone, had undergone episodes of depression and anxiety as a result of his dismissal. Meanwhile, Adán Guillermo López Lone indicated that “the dismissal […] was a very difficult situation, almost devastating; [they] suffered a great 470 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 157. 471 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 174.