54 * * * 146. The Court has found that this case occurred in the context of a situation of legal uncertainty promoted by laws that limited access to justice in relation to the evaluation procedure and eventual dismissal of the alleged victims, so that they did not have certainty about the proceedings they could or should resort to in order to claim the rights they considered had been violated. Consequently, without needing to determine the nature of the dismissals that have been verified, the Court found that the existing domestic recourses were ineffective, both individually and collectively, to provide an adequate and effective guarantee of the right of access to justice, and therefore declared the State responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof (supra paras. 129 and 132). 147. International case law has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.84 148. Nevertheless, in this case the Court considers that a reparation consequent with the violations it has declared is to decide that the State should guarantee the injured parties the enjoyment of their violated rights and freedoms through effective access to a simple, prompt and effective recourse. To this end, it should establish, as soon as possible, an independent and impartial body with powers to decide, in a binding and final manner, whether or not the said persons were dismissed in a justified and regular manner from the Congress of the Republic, and to establish the respective legal consequences, including, if applicable, the relevant compensation based on the specific circumstances of each individual. 149. The Court also decides that the State should establish a specific mechanism to provide the victims with competent legal advisory services, free of charge, for the procedure related to the provisions of the preceding paragraph. * * * 150. Moreover, in this case, the Court finds it necessary to establish compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered owing to the violations declared, and caused by the lack of protection arising from the absence of mechanisms and procedures to deal with facts such as those of the instant case. Since they did not have effective access to judicial guarantees and judicial protection for the competent authorities to take the pertinent decisions, the victims found themselves in a situation of defenselessness and uncertainty with regard to their future employment, which led them to seek justice and may have make it difficult for them to improve their living conditions. 151. Bearing in mind the different aspect of the non-pecuniary damage caused, the Court establishes, based on the equity principle, the sum of US$15,000 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Peruvian currency, that the 84 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 79, para. 150; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. , supra note 3, para. 161, and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 8, para. 160.