68 of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, by virtue of the aggravating circumstances mentioned. 261. The State argued that “the grave deterioration in the victim’s living conditions has not been explained in detail and precisely.” It added that this fact has not been demonstrated, and cannot be presumed. It also objected to the granting of pecuniary compensation for damage to the life project, considering this a category “in disuse,” and requesting that the Court reject it. 262. In its case law, the Court has established that non-pecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and distress caused to victims and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as suffering of a non-pecuniary nature that affects their living conditions.” Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary value to non-pecuniary damage, for the purposes of making integral reparation to the victims, they may only obtain compensation through the payment of a sum of money or through the delivery of goods and services that can be assessed monetarily, as prudently determined by the Court, applying judicial discretion and the principle of equity.240 263. Thus, it is for the Court determine whether, in the instant case, the failure to comply with the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court, which resulted in the impairment of the victim’s rights to social security and property, owing to a lack of effective judicial protection, produced non-pecuniary damage to the detriment of the victim. 264. The Court notes that Mr. Muelle Flores was unable to submit his sworn statement due to his current health situation, since was diagnosed with “Alzheimer-type senile dementia.” In this regard, the Court has verified the deterioration of the victim’s physical condition through two videos provided as supervening evidence by the representatives. 265. However, his daughter Vibeke Ann Muelle Jensen declared that her father had expressed “his concern” because of what “he was owed;” the “extreme need” he suffered, as well as “the problems derived from not having health care.” She also stressed the anguish he suffered because of “the [judicial] proceedings [he] had to go through to be able to” obtain his pension. Finally she described the consequences of his “limited ability to cover his health needs and […] not enjoying a situation of wellbeing consistent with the professional status he had throughout his life.” 241 For his part, Jesús Aníbal Delgado Flores, the victim’s brother, indicated that Mr. Muelle Flores had suffered “a tremendous nervous depression” and that he had to “support him financially and at home [since] he has lost his hearing due to stress.”242 266. From these statements, it is clear that the victim was unable to enjoy the financial security afforded by having the full pension to which he was entitled, based on his contributions for more than 27 years, and having to survive on the good will of his family, as a result of the failure to execute the judgments in his favor for more than 25 years. Consequently, the Court considers that the victim experienced frustration, anguish and suffering, together with the progressive deterioration and aggravation of his state of health. 267. Although this Court has established in its constant case law that a judgment declaring a violation of rights constitutes per se a form of reparation,243 and reiterates this point once again in the instant case, it considers that the uncertainty, anguish and suffering inflicted on Mr. Muelle Flores 240 Cf. 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 Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para.375. 241 Cf. Sworn statement by Vibeke Ann Muelle Jensen. (evidence file, folios 1840 and 1841). 242 Cf. Sworn statement of Jesús Aníbal Delgado Flores. (evidence file, folios 1841 and 1842) Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 13, para. 184, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 13, para. 413. 243