27 115. Among the evidentiary items submitted to the Court is the written statement of Mr. Adrián Sapeti, Mr. Kimel’s psychiatrist, which statement was neither objected to nor brought into question by the State. According to such statement: The lengthy court proceedings Eduardo Kimel has been put through, which I found out about in 1990, caused him extended psychic trauma, which in turn caused post-traumatic stress Syndrome with clinical manifestations of generalized anxiety, depressive symptoms and somatization disorders, which worsened as a result of the protracted extension of the traumatic situation created by the decision of 1998 and 1999. […] This impaired his capacity to work and brought about conflicts in his social and family relationships. 116. At the public hearing held before this Court (supra para. 9), Mr. Kimel stated as follows: The greatest paradox [is] that the only person to be prosecuted and punished in connection with the San Patricio massacre has been the journalist who wrote the book. The murderers, the instigators of this horrendous quintuple murder have never been identified and, most probably, are still at large […]. Somehow, this is the letter of introduction I have used in an attempt to explain the arbitrariness and truly horrendous meaning the trial and, naturally, the judgment, had for me. Personally […], mainly since the lower court’s judgment, the court proceeding became an obvious factor of imbalance, of uneasiness, not just for me but for my entire family group as well. Somehow, and I would like to be accurate in this regard, this created a feeling of strong anguish, a somber idea of what my life’s horizon was going to be in connection with this issue. […] From the professional viewpoint, this court proceeding subjected me to a number of restrictions […], one of them being my […] gravitating away from investigative journalism […] towards what we might call areas of journalism that are less invested in reality or, at least, to be more accurate, less exposed to the risk of prosecution. […] Today is not just any day for me, this is not just another day in my life; I stand here with a settlement agreement, and I appreciate the State’s willingness to reach that settlement, I am deeply grateful for the State of Argentina’s acknowledgement of the violation […] of my rights, but I stan[d] here after 16 years, a very long time. I have a 20-year old daughter; when this whole thing started, she had barely turned four; I shared twenty years of my life with my partner Griselda, who unfortunately passed away last year, and my greatest regret is that I have reached this stage, for which I am deeply grateful, without her here to share this moment with me, because she was deeply committed to my cause, even to the materialization of my book, and I would have truly liked that she could be here with us today, but unfortunately that is not possible. […] I celebrate that I have the chance of saying all what I am saying before this Honorable Court today, because this marks, in my case, the end of many years of feeling humiliated. I am not an offender, I am not a criminal, I had never been involved in a criminal proceeding before, I believe I am recognized by my colleagues, by my coworkers, [as] someone who is not just responsible but extremely responsible, when I work I am fully aware of what I am doing. I am not a libeler, I am not a slanderer, that is not the way I conduct myself, I am very careful but, unfortunately, I myself and my family as well have had to suffer […] the consequences of an absolutely unfair situation. 117. The Court has repeatedly held that a judgment declaring the existence of a violation is in and of itself a form of reparation.82 Notwithstanding, considering the circumstances of the instant case, the suffering that has been inflicted on the victim as a result of the violations committed, the change in his way of living and the other non-pecuniary implications he has endured, the Court finds it appropriate to order payment of 82 Cf. Case of Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 72; Case of Albán-Cornejo et al., supra note 75, para. 148; and Case of Saramaka People, supra note 14, para. 195.