49 168. In this regard, the Court has established that Mr. Neptune was subjected to inhuman detention conditions, that he was detained unlawfully and arbitrarily, and that he was not provided with due judicial protection and guarantees, all of which caused him physical and mental suffering. Taking into account the different aspects of the non-pecuniary damage caused, the Court establishes, based on the equity principle, the sum of US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars), that the State must pay in favor of Yvon Neptune. 169. The State must pay the compensation for non-pecuniary damage directly to Mr. Neptune, within one year of notification of this judgment. C) MEASURES OF SATISFACTION AND GUARANTEES OF NON-REPETITION 170. The Court will determine measures of satisfaction that seek to repair the nonpecuniary damage, and that are not of a pecuniary nature, and will order measures with a public scope and repercussion. 171. As a guarantee of non-repetition, the Commission asked the Court to order the State “to adopt as a matter of priority, the measures necessary to ensure that the right under national law and Article 7 of the American Convention of any person detained to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power is given general effect in Haiti.”220 In addition, “the State must be required to modernize the Haitian prison system so that it conforms to the requirements of the Convention concerning humane treatment,” considering that “Haiti has subjected Mr. Neptune and thousands of persons to a system that does not meet the minimum international standards for prison conditions.” The Commission also asked the Court to order the State to “adopt all legislative, policy-related, administrative and economic measures necessary to relieve the problems in Haitian prisons resulting from overcrowding, inferior physical and sanitary infrastructure, substandard security systems and lack of contingency plans.”221 Lastly, the Commission asked the Court that, given “the nature of the violations committed, […] the damage and the consequences of the violations mentioned in Mr. Neptune’s testimony, it determine the corresponding measures of satisfaction.”222 172. The representative asked the Court to determine the measures of satisfaction to clear Mr. Neptune’s name, considering that he suffered and continues suffering from the unfounded charges against him, given that the decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal of April 13, 2007, did not rule on the merits of the case; that the Government has still not publicly acknowledged that the judicial proceedings against him and his detention conditions violated his fundamental rights; and that no measure has been adopted to prosecute and punish those who abused of their functions to target Mr. Neptune.223 a) Obligation to provide Yvon Neptune with an effective recourse 220 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 145 (folio 137), and final written arguments presented by the Commission, supra nota 22, para. 66 (folio 314). 221 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 145 (folio 137), and final written arguments presented by the Commission, supra nota 22, para. 67 (folio 315). 222 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 22, para. 67 (folio 315). 223 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the representative, supra nota 65, para. 86 (folio 288).