110 h) [His] “life project got frustrated in view of the detriment to his personal and professional opportunities of advancement caused by [his] detention;” i) Due to the hard rules he had to obey during his detention, Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas could not have access to books or magazines related to his profession. “In that sense, he could not [s]tay updated in the field of economics;” j) The possibility to resume his life project as “counselor and researcher is considerably limited given the fact that Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas i[s] now sixty years old;” and k) The reparation that the State should grant “for the damage caused to his life project, particularly to his professional development, must consist of providing him the means to take up updating courses within the field of [his] specialization for at least one year. Arguments of the State 266. The State has not submitted any arguments as regards non pecuniary damage. Considerations of the Court 267. The Court shall now address the non pecuniary injurious effects derived from the facts in the instant case. Non pecuniary damage may comprise both the pain and suffering caused to the direct victims and to their next of kin, the impairment of values which are significant to persons, as well as the non pecuniary damage caused by the modification of the living conditions of the victims or their next of kin. As it is not possible to assess an accurate amount to measure such damage, in order to provide for integral reparation to the victims, said damages could only be compensated in two ways. Firstly, with the payment of amounts of money or the delivery of goods or services susceptible of having a pecuniary value, which the Court may determine in its judicial discretion and in terms of equity. And secondly, by means of acts or works which may have a public impact, such as the dissemination of an official reproach for the violations of the human rights involved and a commitment to avoid such violations in the future, in an attempt to repair the reputation of the victims, the acknowledgement of their dignity or the relief of their next of kin.193 The first aspect of the reparation of non pecuniary damage shall be analyzed in this section, and the second one shall be dealt with in the following section. 268. International case law has repeatedly shown that the judgment is per se a form of reparation. Notwithstanding, due to the circumstances of the instant case, the suffering that the facts caused to the victims, and the way they altered the lives of their next of kin, as well as the non pecuniary or immaterial damage they suffered, the 193 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 282; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 82; and Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 7, para. 158.