29 the case of Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, a public act of apology was ordered given that the State was found responsible for the forced disappearance of the victim, his stigmatization and the revictimization of his next-of-kin.76 In the case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, related to the forced disappearance of the victim, the Tribunal considered it was proven that the lack of justice and the concealment of the truth caused the victim’s next-of-kin a profound distress, intense psychological suffering, anguish, and uncertainty and so, it ordered a public act for the acknowledgment of the State’s international responsibility in order to repair the damage caused and to avoid the repetition of facts similar to those of that case.77 In the case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras the Court concluded that the manner and circumstances in which the victim was murdered, and failure by Government authorities to investigate that event as well as the inefficacy of the measures adopted to clarify the events and, if applicable, punish those responsible therefor, have affected the moral and psychological health of the victim’s relatives,78 which called for, inter alia, an act of public apology. 140. In other cases, the Court has considered that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. For example, in the cases of Fermín Ramírez V. Guatemala,79 Raxcacó Reyes V. Guatemala80 and Case of Boyce et al V. Barbados,81 related to death sentences incompatible with the Convention, where the victims were not executed, the Tribunal did not order the States an act of public apology and even, it did not order the payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, given that it considered that the issuance of the judgment was sufficient. 141. In the instant case, the Court considers that the violations committed against Mr. Barreto Leiva shall be sufficiently repaired by the issuance of the instant judgment, the publication thereof (supra para. 137) the possibility of appealing the condemnatory judgment (supra para. 130) and the compensatory amount set in paragraph 148 infra. 6. Compensatory amounts expenses and reimbursement of costs and 142. The Commission pointed out that the representative “is in a better position to quantify the claims” of the victim; therefore, the Commission abstained from indicating the items and amounts for which Mr. Barreto Leiva should be compensated. The representative presented the victim's claims, which are analyzed next, together with the State's response. 6.1. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 76 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro V. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 198 and 200. 77 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 23, para. 249. 78 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 6, para. 183. 79 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramirez V. Guatemala, supra note 37, para. 130. 80 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 131. 81 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. V. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs . Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 126.