39 a) evidence of non-pecuniary damage by the party alleging it is as needed as that of pecuniary damage. However, pursuant to the Court’s precedents, these are presumed in view of the circumstances of the case; and b) it requests its acknowledgement of liability be considered as reparation of the non pecuniary damages inasmuch as it contributes to “the dignification of Wilson Gutiérrez and [that] of his next of kin.” Considerations of the Court 82. Non pecuniary damage may include distress, suffering, tampering with the victim’s core values, and changes of a non pecuniary nature in the person’s everyday life. As it is impossible to assess the value of the non pecuniary damage sustained in a precise equivalent in money, for the purposes of full reparation to the victims it may be effected in one of two ways. On the one hand, by paying the victim an amount of money or by delivering property or services the worth of which may be established in money, as the Court may determine exercising reasonably its judicial discretion and applying equitable standards; and on the other hand by public actions or works the effect of which, among others, be to acknowledge the victim’s dignity and to avoid new violations of human rights.35 83. The judgment, according to repeated international precedents, constitutes, in and of itself, a form of reparation.36 However, owing to the circumstances of the instant case, the suffering the events have cause the victims, the changes in their way of living and the other consequences of a non pecuniary nature they bore, the Court considers that it is meet, on equitable grounds, to pay compensation for non pecuniary damage. 84. Bearing in mind the various aspects of the damage the Commission and the representatives allege, the Court determines, on equitable grounds, the value of compensation for the non pecuniary damage according to the following standars: a) in order to determine the compensation for the non pecuniary damage suffered by Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler the Court takes into account, inter alia, that: i) he was arbitrarily arrested, subjected to torture which caused him injuries in very intimate parts of his body; ii) doubts were cast on his character, and on the motives that led him to report the events, during the eight years the proceedings against him for the crime of extortion lasted, wherein he was acquitted in 2002; iii) he suffered a campaign including harassment, aggressions and threats, as a result of which campaign he was forced to flee the country and he has remained abroad to date; iv) as a result of the aforementioned events his family broke apart and he almost lost his relationship with his son Kevin; v) those responsible for torturing him and for the ensuing persecutions are still unpunished; and vi) all the above has produced physical and psychological sequels that have affected all the aspects of his life; 35 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 3, para. 158; Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 243; and Case of Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 7, para. 199. 36 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 3, para. 159; Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 260; and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 3, para. 130.