388. The Commission requested payment of compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage to the victims in his case. 389. The representatives requested payment of US$4,936,691.26 to Vladimir Herzog’s family for loss of earnings, on the basis that, at the time, he received a salary of Cr$15,870.00, which today is equal to approximately R$36,446.00 a month, and that life expectancy for a man in Brazil today in 71 years. They also asked the Court to establish, in equity, the value of indirect damage to the family. 390. The State argued that, first, the violations suffered by Vladimir Herzog fell outside the Court’s temporal competence, which prevented it from establishing reparations as a result of those facts. It also argued that the final amount of a payment to victims established in Law 9140/95 had already been considered adequate in the case of Gomes Lund et al. Consequently, it asked the Court to reject the request for compensation for pecuniary damage. 391. The Court recalls that Vladimir Herzog is not a victim in this case; thus, there is no causal nexus between the request to pay compensation for loss of earnings and the purpose of this case. 392. With regard to indirect damage, the representatives have not submitted any evidence about the expenditure involved. However, owing to the search to obtain justice, it is natural that Vladimir Herzog’s family had expenses arising from the numerous steps they took during 20 years to advance the case before the domestic and the international courts. Consequently, the Court finds it pertinent to establish compensation, in equity, of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for indirect damage, which should be delivered directly to Clarice Herzog, in representation of all the victims in this case. ii) Non-pecuniary damage 393. The Commission requested payment of compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage to the victims in this case. 394. The representatives requested payment of US$40,000.00 to each victim as compensation for non-pecuniary damage as a result of the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to guarantee the integrity and freedom of expression of Vladimir Herzog, and the denial of justice, truth and reparation to his family. 395. The State reiterated its arguments in relation to the pecuniary damage and asked the Court to reject the request to pay non-pecuniary damage. 396. The Court recalls that the violations suffered by Vladimir Herzog fall outside the Court’s temporal competence; therefore, the Court finds this request inadmissible. Nevertheless, in its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include the suffering and anguish caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, and also the alterations of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.” 408 Based on the circumstances of this case, the violations committed, the suffering caused and experienced at different levels, the time that has elapsed, the denial of justice, the proven violations of personal integrity, and the other consequences of a non-pecuniary nature that Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, para. 84, and Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 319. 408 98