36 125. By virtue of the foregoing, the Court deems pertinent to set, in equity, the amount of US$ 4.500.00 (four thousand and five hundred dollars of the United States of America) as compensation for consequential damage in favor of each one of the parents, Honoria Estrada de Ticona and César Ticona Olivares. Furthermore, the Tribunal deems appropriate to set, in equity, the amount of US$1.500.00 (one thousand five hundred dollars of the United States of America) as compensation for consequential damage in favor of Hugo Ticona and, following the same line, the amount of US$500.00 (five hundred dollars of the United States of America) as compensation for consequential damage in favor of the brother and sister, Rodo Ticona Estrada and Betzy Ticona Estrada. Said amount shall be delivered to each beneficiary within the term of one year as from notice of this Judgment. b) Non-pecuniary damage 126. The Court shall determine the non-pecuniary damage according to the guidelines established in its case-law.107 127. The Commission requested the Court to order the payment, in fairness, of a compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 128. In consideration of the suffering of Renato Ticona, the representation requested the Court to equitable determine the sum of US$100.000.00 (a hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America) for non-pecuniary damage. As to the suffering of the relatives of Mr. Ticona Estrada, the representative requested the sum of US$60.000.00 (sixty thousand dollars of the United States of America) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of the parents, César Ticona Olivares and Honoria Estrada de Ticona and the brother, Hugo Ticona; and the sum of US$25.000.00 (twenty-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Betzy Ticona and Rodo Ticona. 129. The State objected to the considerations made by the representative for each one of the beneficiaries of the reparations regarding the non-pecuniary damage, inasmuch as the State has adopted a series of positive measures in order to repair the moral damage. 130. The international case-law has repeatedly established that a judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.108 However, in view of the circumstances of the instant case, the sufferings that the violations have caused to the victim and his next of kin, the changes in the standards of living, and in light of the other nonpecuniary consequences they bore, the Court deems it appropriate to award compensation for non-pecuniary damage, assessed on equitable grounds.109 107 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al.. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 52; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 234; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 16, para. 164. 108 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría v. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C N° 29, para.; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Supra note 13, para. 239; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 16, para. 164. 109 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C N° 77, para. 84; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes" v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008; Series C N° 182, para. 242; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 239.