48 causal link to the facts of the case sub judice.94 The Court considers proven that Mr. Acosta Calderón was a farmer (supra para. 50(1)). This Tribunal points out that due to the activity carried out by the alleged victim it cannot determine what his monthly income was, and suitable vouchers were not presented in order to determine, in an exact manner, the income he was perceiving at the time of his arrest. 158. Non-pecuniary damages may include both suffering and affliction caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, such as detriment to very significant personal values, as well as non-pecuniary alterations in the conditions of existence of a victim or his or her family. Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damages, it can only be the object of compensation in two forms. First, through payment of an amount of money or delivery of goods or services that can be estimated in monetary terms, which the Tribunal will establish through reasonable application of judicial discretion and equity. And, second, through acts or works which are public in their scope or effects.95 159. It is well settled in international jurisprudence that the judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation. However, the Court deems necessary the payment of a compensation for non-pecuniary damages.96 The Court considers that Mr. Acosta Calderón suffered a non-pecuniary damage by having been arbitrarily kept in preventive detention for more than five years. 160. In this regard, considering the activity carried out by the victim as his means of subsistence and the peculiarities of the instant case, the Court sets the amount of US $ 60,000.00 (sixty thousand dollars of the United States of America), based on the principle of equity, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages both for the time he was detained and for the decrease in capacity to carry out his normal work activities. C) OTHER FORMS OF REPARATION (SATISFACTION MEASURES AND NON-REPETITION GUARANTEES) Arguments of the Commission 161. The Commission stated that: a) since “the State is who has the primary obligation to repair the violations proven by the bodies of the Inter-American System,” Ecuador must create “an internal mechanism that can offer reparation for the people that seek an effective recourse when the rights granted to them by the American Convention are violated;” and b) the State must adopt “the measures necessary to give effect to the appeal for legal protection of freedom, so its provisions, in accordance to Ecuadorian legislation, can be implemented from a procedural and substantive 94 Cfr. Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 88, para. 93; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 150; and Case of “Children’s Rehabilitation”, supra note 59, para. 283. 95 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 125; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 88, para. 96; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 156. 96 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 126; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 88, para. 97; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 157.