of this judgment, so that the Community may invest this money as they decide, in accordance with their own decision-making practices. 6.2. Non-pecuniary damage 319. In its case law, the Court has also developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and established that non-pecuniary damage includes, “the suffering and anguish caused to the direct victim and to the next of kin, the harm to values that are of great significance to the individual, and also the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim and his or her family.”313 320. The Commission argued that “non-pecuniary damage is caused not only by the loss of a loved one, but also by the inhuman conditions [that affected] the members of the Xákmok Kásek Community, a factor that, in this case, is especially important because that situation was due to the absence of a guarantee […] of the Community’s right to its ancestral territory.” It asked “that the State be ordered […] to pay an amount to the Community and its members based on the non-pecuniary damage they have suffered as a direct consequence of the violations […] of the American Convention.” In addition, the Commission asked the Court to “order the State to pay the next of kin of the deceased members of the Community the amount that it determined, in equity.” The representatives agreed with the Commission. 321. When establishing the non-pecuniary damage, the Court will assess the special meaning that land has for indigenous peoples in general, and for the Xákmok Kásek Community in particular (supra paras. 107, 149 and 174 to 182). This means that any denial of the enjoyment or exercise of property rights harms values that are very significant to the members of those peoples, who run the risk of losing or suffering irreparable harm to their life and identity and to the cultural heritage to be passed on to future generations. 322. The Court also takes into consideration that the State committed itself “[to] the integral development of this Community by the design and execution of projects for the collective use of the property awarded, with either national or international funding.” 323. Based on the above and as it has in previous cases,314 the Court considers it appropriate to order, in equity, that the State create a community development fund as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage that the members of the Community have suffered. This fund and the programs it will support must be implemented on the land awarded to the members of the Community in accordance with paragraphs 283 to 286 and 306 of this judgment. The State must allocate the sum of US$700,000.00 (seven hundred thousand United States dollars) to this fund, which must be used to implement educational, housing, nutritional and health projects, as well as to provide drinking water and to build sanitation infrastructure, for the benefit of the members of the Community. These projects must be decided by an implementation committee, described below, and must be completed within two years of the delivery of the lands to the members of the Community. 313 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra note 303, para. 84; Case of the “Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 255 and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 273. 314 Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 5, para. 234; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 16, and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 16, paras. 201 and 202. 73