afterwards, to the point of having to seek assistance […] from doctors specializing in general or internal medicine, gastroenterology, neurology, pain medicine and others.” 290 For his part, Mr. Andrade Ubidia stated that “[f]or a long time [he] was withdrawn, felt a deep sense of despair, failure and suffered extreme anxiety over the future, both personal and in relation to the country.” 291 Finally, Mr. Varea Áviles stated that “undoubtedly the coarse and violent humiliation [he] suffered did not allow [him] to prepare the honorable retirement that a person like [him], who had dedicated [his] whole life to the exercise of the Judiciary, deserved, given that ‘from one day to the next’ [he] found [himself] at home and not knowing what to do.” 292 261. From the foregoing statements, it is clear that their dismissal from office and the manner in which this occurred, caused the judges moral damage, reflected in symptoms such as the depression suffered by some, or feelings of shame and instability. The Court also considers that the judges suffered moral damage by being unable to carry out their duties as judges of the judicial branch and, in return for their work, receive a salary that would allow them and their families to enjoy a lifestyle similar to the one they had before their dismissal. Furthermore, the Court takes into account that the situation experienced by the 27 judges had a direct effect on their state of mind, given their financial expectations. Nevertheless, the Court emphasizes that in this case the only evidence provided of nonpecuniary damage was the victims’ statements. In weighing up all the factors in order to determine the amount due for non-pecuniary damage, the Court also takes into account its jurisprudence on this matter. Accordingly, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$ 5,000.00 (five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for each of the victims and grants a period of one year for payment. 262. Bearing in mind the reparations ordered previously, it is not necessary to refer to the arguments presented by the representatives related to the alleged effects on the judges’ life project. D. Other measures of reparation Arguments of the parties 263. The representatives requested that “the persons involved in violating the rights of the victims in this case” be investigated and punished. According to the representatives, this would include “the President of the Republic at that time, Lucio Gutiérrez, for having summoned the special period of sessions [and each and every one of the congressmen who voted for the [dismissal] resolution” and “the judges of the Constitutional Tribunal” who prevented the filing of amparo remedies against the dismissal. They therefore requested that “the Judgment issued by the Court be notified to the Public Prosecutor and that there should be a process to recover the payment made by the State in respect of the reparations ordered.” The representatives also called for an investigation of those who denied the amparo remedies, threatened the judges and made it impossible for them to apply measures of domestic law. They requested that the Court order the process to recover the payment from those responsible as part of the Judgment, so that the State could be 290 Affidavit rendered by Armando Serrano Puig (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2692). 291 Affidavit rendered by José Santiago Andrade Ubidia (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, pages 2769 and 2770). 292 Affidavit rendered by Alberto Rodrigo Varea Aviles (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2717). 75