63 220. The Commission asked the Court to “establish, in equity, the amount of compensation” for non-pecuniary damage. In this regard, the Commission “observe[d] that several family members of the deceased victim and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, surviving victim, have not benefited” from the settlement agreement reached in the proceedings in the domestic administrative jurisdiction, and that “the total amounts of the payments offered have not been delivered.” In addition, it considered that the Court “should rule on whether the sums paid under the extrajudicial settlement […] should be deducted from those that it orders in its judgment.” 221. The representatives indicated that “with the exception of Ligia Valle and the successors of Octavio Valle, Jesús María [Valle Jaramillo’s] next of kin have expressed their satisfaction with settlement agreement offered by the State.” Therefore, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay US$300,000.00 (three hundred thousand United States dollars) to both Ligia Valle Jaramillo and Octavio Valle Jaramillo, equivalent to the sum received by each of their sisters Luzmila, Nelly and María Magdalena Valle Jaramillo under the settlement agreement for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Regarding Carlos Fernando Jaramillo and his family, the representatives asked the Court to establish and amount of no less than US$50,000.00 [(fifty thousand United States dollars)] for each of them. In addition, they alleged that “[t]he other members of the Jaramillo Correa family, who suffered forced displacement from the municipality of Ituango, but who live in Colombia, […] have the right to compensation established by the Court, in equity, which should be no less than US$20,000 [twenty thousand] United States dollars.” 222. The State indicated that “it had reached a settlement for the facts in the Colombian administrative jurisdiction, [and that] under the settlement, the State had awarded an amount for non-pecuniary damage” in favor of some of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo’s next of kin. Consequently, it asked the Court “not to decide other compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparation for Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, Nelly Valle Jaramillo, and their family groups, owing to res judicata and the exhaustion of domestic remedies.” 223. According to the State’s acquiescence and the findings in Chapter VI of this judgment, the absence of justice and the lack of knowledge about the truth in the instant case have caused the victims profound pain, intense psychological suffering, anguish, and uncertainty (supra para. 102). During the public hearing before the Court, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa stated: “every day of my life I think about returning [to Colombia …] but I see […] that I have virtually lost my homeland; that I cannot return now. So much as been destroyed for us, and life continues and we just survive. The situation is not appropriate to return.”160 224. The Court’s case law has established repeatedly that a judgment declaring the violation of human rights constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.161 However, owing to the violations declared in this judgment to the detriment of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage he suffered. The State must pay this amount directly to the beneficiary within one year of notification of this judgment. 225. In addition, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) for Gloria Lucía Correa, Carlos Enrique Jaramillo Correa, María Lucía 160 161 Statement made by the witness, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, supra note 97. Cf. Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 164, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 239.