45 Non-pecuniary damage 164. Non-pecuniary damage can include the suffering and hardship, the harm of objects of value that are very significant to the individual, and also changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim. Since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary equivalent to make integral reparation to the victims, it can only be compensated in two ways: first, by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services with a monetary value, which the Court determines by the reasonable exercise of judicial discretion and based on the principle of equity; and, second, by carrying out acts or projects with public recognition or repercussion, which the Court will refer to below, that have the effect, among others, of acknowledging the dignity of the victims, and avoiding the repetition of the violations,150 bearing in mind, also, that international case law has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.151 165. The Commission stated that Mr. Bayarri “endured and continues to endure physical effects and profound psychological suffering as a result of the torture he underwent while he was in the State’s custody.” It indicated, also, that “[t]he suffering and anguish arose from the torture and are aggravated owing to the impunity that persists, [which] affects the lives of the victim and his family.” 166. The representatives alleged that “[t]he different social communications media repeated […] libelous and harmful […] references to Juan Carlos Bayarri [as a dangerous kidnapper and murderer] as if this was the truth and, as a result, he was kept […] interned in maximum security prisons.” Consequently, they requested that the State compensate Mr. Bayarri “for the libel of which he was a victim, and for the fact that he was kept in preventive detention for almost 13 years.” In this regard, they asked for a reparation of US$5,000,000.00 (five million United States dollars) for the non-pecuniary damage owing to the libel and defamation of which Mr. Bayarri was the victim, together with the sum of US$1,500,000.00 (one million five hundred thousand United States dollars) for each year of prison. The total amount requested was US$19,500,000.00 (nineteen million five hundred thousand United States dollars). 167. The State indicated that the victim “did not identify who was responsible for the alleged libel and injuries or explain the reasons why the State and not the alleged authors thereof should be responsible for the alleged damage.” It also indicated that “[i]f [the Court] decides to order payment of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage presumably suffered by Mr. Bayarri, its scope should be determined in accordance with the ‘reasonable exercise’ of judicial discretion and ‘based on the principle of equity.’” 168. The Court takes into account, inter alia, that Mr. Bayarri: (i) was subjected to torture so that he would plead guilty to committing several offenses (supra para. 87); (ii) remained in preventive detention for almost thirteen years, in violation of his right to personal liberty (supra para. 75), and during this time he was separated from his family; and (iii) suffered as a result of the delay in clarifying the facts he was accused of and continues suffering 150 Cf. The “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84; Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 175; and case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 9, para. 237. 151 Cf. Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 14, para. 166; and case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 35, para. 239.