14 49. The Inter-American Commission considered that the deprivation of freedom, disregarding a habeas corpus judgment that ordered the victim’s liberation, the prison sentence, the embargo on his assets and the publicity given to the case, affected the Mr. Cesti’s “feelings”; it also declared that this situation was aggravated owing to the type of work that he performed, because, in insurance activities, trust is an essential factor in the relationship between the insurer and the person insured. Therefore, it requested a compensation, to be determined by the Court. 50. With regard to non-pecuniary and psychological damage, Peru remarked that this claim was not admissible, because a detention could not be described as undue if it was executed on the basis of a warrant and, also, if the effects of the detention on Mr. Cesti were merely due to an omission on his part, since he failed to demand and process a request for release on bail. 51. Based on extensive international jurisprudence, the Court considers that obtaining a judgment that supports the victim’s claims is, in itself, a form of reparation20. However, it also believes that it is pertinent to grant him an additional compensation for non-pecuniary damage, taking into account the circumstances of the instant case21. This should be determined on the basis of equity and prudent evaluation, since it is not possible to assess it precisely22. 52. In this respect, the Court considers it necessary to evaluate the violations that were declared in the judgment on merits in the instant case and the repercussions that these had on the victim and, observing the standards established by this Court in the resolution of other cases, to determine a reasonable and appropriate amount for non-pecuniary damage in favor of Mr. Cesti, as reparation for the harm caused him. 53. Based on the previous considerations, the Court believes that it is fair to grant the victim a compensation of US$ 25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damage. 54. With regard to Mr., Cesti’s request that this Court order the State to provide reparations to his next of kin, this Court has already verified the existence of grave 20 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 1, para. 183; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case, supra note 1, para. 99; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 3, para. 206; The Constitutional Court case, supra note 1, para. 122; Blake case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 55; Suárez Rosero case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 72; Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 84; Neira Alegría et al. case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 56; and El Amparo case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 62; see also Cf. Eur Court HR, Ruiz Torrija v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-A, para. 33; Eur Court HR, Boner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-B, para. 46; Eur Court HR, Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C, para. 45; Eur Court H.R., Darby judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, para. 40; Eur Court H.R., Koendjbiharie, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 185-B, para. 34; Eur Court H.R., Wassink judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A, para. 41; and Eur Court H.R., McCallum judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183, para. 37. 21 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 1, para. 183; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 3, para. 206; and Blake case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 55. 22 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 1, para. 183; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 3, para. 206; and Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 84; and inter alia Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Kemmache v. France, judgment of 2 November 1993, Series A No. 270-B, p. 13, para. 11.