45 rulings of the Constitutional Court. 133. Though there are numerous cases in which this Tribunal has decided that a condemnatory judgment constitutes per se adequate reparation,110 as mentioned on this occasion, in the case at hand the Court further considers that the uncertainty, anguish and suffering inflicted on the 273 victims by the failure to comply with the judicial rulings issued in their favor determines the existence of an impairment capable of being repaired, alternately, by means of compensation, in accordance with equity. 134. Therefore, the Court determines, in fairness, the amount of US$2.000 (two thousand United States dollars) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, for each one of the two-hundred and seventy-three victims named in the table of paragraph 113 of this Judgment. The State should pay such compensations directly to the beneficiaries within the term of one year as of notice of this Judgment. C) Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 135. In this chapter, the Tribunal shall determine the satisfaction measures aimed at redressing the non-pecuniary damage and shall order the non-repetition measures of public import or impact.111 i. Enforcement of the Rulings of the Constitutional Court 136. The Commission asked the Court “to order the State to take the necessary measures to comply promptly with the judgments of the Constitutional Court of Perú of October 21, 1997, and January 26, 2001, that is, the payment of the differences accrued for adjustment between April 1993 and November 2002”. 137. The representative also requested the Court to order the State the payment of the salaries, benefits, and bonuses that the alleged victims failed to receive from April 1993 to October 2002. In this regard, and as part of the final arguments, the representative informed that on January 8, 2009, the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima ruled “on a remedy presented during the [P]rocedure of [E]xecution of the [Judicial Rulings] and declared that a tax be imposed on the accrued pensions that should be paid to the victims as pensions that were not paid at such opportunity, as of April 1993, by means of the payment of the contribution" stipulated by Law Nº 28046 of July 31, 2003 . “Said law imposed a tax on the pensions of the discharged and retired employees of the pension system under Decree Law No. 20.530 that established two fiscal tax units [UIT] as a maximum amount for pensions, in force […] at the date of the corresponding payment”. Hence, in accordance with the representative, said 2009 decision would determine that the “victims in this case may end financingprobably 30%- the pensions that the State was obliged to paid them since 1993”. 110 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. V. Perú. 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. 111 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.); supra note 102, para. 84; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 13, note 221; and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 13, note 362.