94 the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next-of-kin, and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as other sufferings that cannot be assessed in financial terms, to the living conditions of the victims or their families.”355 256. The Commission requested the Court “in view of the nature of the case and the seriousness of the damage caused to the victims, […] to set the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damages based on the principle of equity.” 257. The representatives indicated that “[t]he unlawful detention and torture, as well as the lack of justice and reparation, caused serious physical, psychological and emotional damages to Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera, but also had a serious impact on their life project,” whose effects are still present. According to the representatives, the victims in this case have experienced very serious emotional symptoms such as “periods of deep sadness, anxiety, depression, headaches and changes in humor, among other symptoms,” as well as symptoms related to a Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. On the other hand, the separation from their families “produced serious anguish in the victims,” since they “thought that some harm could be inflicted on their relatives.” Additionally, the representatives sustained that “[the alleged] criminalization context and repression of their colleagues in the OCESP” meant that they had to abandon such organization. Likewise, the representatives made reference to the moment in which the victims were unfairly imprisoned in bad confinement conditions, an issue that should be repaired. 258. The State sustained that, if the Court determines that violations were in fact committed, “the facts of this case could not give rise, under any circumstances, to non-pecuniary damages capable of being repaired by means of a sum of money.” The State sustained that “it does not deny the commendable task the petitioners could perform in protecting the environment, but said issue is not pending resolution in the instant case.” 259. The victims were carrying out activities within the framework of OCESP, an organization of which Mr. Montiel Flores was one of its founders. In his statement before a notary public, Mr. Cabrera García pointed out that OCESP was formed by 45 people, and that they always met “[m]ainly […] to stop trucks carrying illegal wood, without a permit.”356 In the public hearing held in this case, Mr. Montiel Flores similarly stated that “[since] 1995, [when a] foreign company […] came to Guerrero […] to operate abusively, [they] saw that it was a risk for all the inhabitants of the region and […] then they start[ed] to get organiz[ed].”357 260. The international case law has repeatedly established that a Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.358 However, in view of the circumstances of the instant case, the sufferings that the violations have caused to the victims and the denial of justice, as well as the changes in the standards of living, and the 355 Cf. Case of the "Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 317, para. 84; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al V. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 275; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 278. 356 Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Teodoro Cabrera Garcia before a public notary, supra note 147, folio 1192. 357 358 Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores at the public hearing, supra note 177. 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 Rosendo Cantú et al V. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 278; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 282.