108 out in an open, independent and transparent manner. All these processes must be implemented without discriminatory criteria that seek to limit the granting of concessions, and must be designed to reinforce the pluralism of information and respect for judicial guarantees. D) Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 395. The Court recalls the compensatory nature of this reparation;396 the type and amount depend on the characteristics of the violation and the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm caused. It should not make the victim or his heirs either richer or poorer, and should relate to the violations declared in the judgment.397 One or more measures may repair a specific harm without this being considered a double reparation. 398 396. The Court also reiterates that, even though a judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation,399 considering the circumstances of the case sub judice and the consequences of the violations committed for the victims on a personal and professional level, the Court also finds it pertinent to examine the payment of compensation, established in fairness, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.400 Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 397. Regarding the request for compensation for pecuniary damage, the Commission asked that adequate reparation be ordered in favor of the injured parties for the violation of due process. Regarding the request for non-pecuniary reparation, it did not present specific arguments. 398. Regarding the request for compensation for pecuniary damage, the representatives submitted the following arguments: a) They requested reparation “for the economic prejudice that the devaluation of [RCTV] caused” to the shareholders. They indicated that “the harm caused owing to the closure of RCTV, calculated [from May 2007] to May 2014 amounts to a total of US$384,458,356 or its equivalent in current bolivars: Bs. 19,194,044,977.46.” The representatives divided up that amount based on the “percentage of shares held by each shareholder” and indicated the amounts requested for each of them. b) They also requested “the sum of US$33,166,954 [for] transmission equipment made abroad, the general transmission network, sites for placement of transmitters and other equipment, as well as reports on strategic signal coverage in the territory of Venezuela” and indicated that each shareholder should be reimbursed “in proportion to his/her share percentage.” They added that “additional damages and costs could exist that it has not been possible to evaluate because RCTV has not been allowed” to verify the condition and the safety of the seized assets. Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 47, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, para. 266. 396 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs, para. 43, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, para. 266. 397 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 450. 398 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs, para. 35, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, para. 482. 399 Cf. Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 437. 400