64 241. In their respective statements before this Court, Mrs. Ruggeri251 and Messrs. Apitz252 and Rocha253 expressed that their reputation, professional and scholarly activities, social connections, and family life were affected by their removal. Also, they indicated they had suffered from persecution and that they had been severely criticized in public fora, particularly by the press. This was reaffirmed by Mrs. María Constanza Rondón,254 Mr. Rocha´s wife, and by Mrs. Jacqueline Ardizzone Montilla,255 Mr. Apitz´s wife. Furthermore, the representative submitted to the Court a psychological report on Mr. Apitz that states that he “has been suffering intense psychological distress.”256 242. In prior cases, the Court has repeatedly held that a judgment declaring a violation of rights is in and of itself a form of redress.257 Notwithstanding, taking into consideration the circumstances of the instant case, the moral damages suffered by the victims as a result of the violations committed against them, the insults they had to endure, the lack of judicial response to their claims and all the other nonpecuniary consequences they suffered, the Court deems it relevant to establish payment of compensation, set on equitable grounds, for non-pecuniary damages.258 Therefore, the Court sets in equity the amount of US $40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) for each of the victims as compensation for non-pecuniary damages. The State shall pay this amount directly to the beneficiaries within the term of one year as from notice of this Judgment. 3. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 243. In this section the Court will determine the measures of satisfaction aimed at redressing non-pecuniary damages and will order measures of public scope or repercussion.259 3.1. Reinstatement in their positions 244. The Commission requested that “the victims be reinstated in their position as judges of the First Court (…) or a position of similar hierarchy if it were not possible to reinstate them in the court where they sat.” It added that “should they be 251 Cf. affidavit of Mrs. Ruggeri, supra note 33. 252 Cf. declaration of Mr. Apitz, supra note 137. 253 Cf. declaration of Mr. Rocha, supra note 144. 254 Cf. affidavit by Mrs. María Constanza Cipriani Rondón on January 9, 2008 (File on the Merits, Book III, pp. 757 and 759). 255 Cf. affidavit by Mrs. Jacqueline Ardizzone Montilla on January 10, 2008 (File on the Merits, Book III, pp. 751 to 755). 256 Cf. psychological report prepared by Mrs. Mariela Hernández (Evidence file, Book V, p. 1356). 257 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 72; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 18, para. 142, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 12, para. 180. 258 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84; Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 14, para. 149, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 219. 259 Cf. Caso Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 268; Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 191, para. 253, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 18, para. 147.