C) Compensation C.1) Pecuniary damage 157. The Court has developed the concept of damage in its case law and the situations in which it should be compensated. This Court has established that pecuniary damage entails “the loss of or harm to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred owing to the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal connection to the facts of the case.”262 158. The Commission asked the Court to establish, based on the equity principle, the amount of the reparation corresponding to the pecuniary damage. 159. In relation to “compensation and costs” for Mr. Díaz Peña, the representative took into account the operations (surgery on the middle ear and perianal abscess), post-operation and rehabilitation expenses, medicines, and the convalescence time of Raúl Díaz. Hence, she requested US$28,000.00 for expenses relating to the middle ear surgery, and US$35,000.00 for expenses relating to the operation on the hemorrhoids and perianal abscess. 160. The Court observes that Mr. Díaz Peña received private medical care as a result of the ailments he suffered while he was in the State’s custody (supra para. 103). Nevertheless, with the evidence in the case file, the Court is unable to quantify precisely the amount that Mr. Díaz Peña or his next of kin paid out. Likewise, although the medical attestations provided indicate that Mr. Díaz Peña has not yet been operated on for his health problems,263 no evidence was submitted to authenticate the estimated costs of the said operations presented by the representative. Therefore, the Court is unable to quantify the amount that the victim would require if he had to undergo the said operations. 161. Consequently, in this case the Court considers it necessary to order reparation for pecuniary damage that includes a component for rehabilitation adapted to the physical ailments suffered by the victim. Therefore, it establishes, in equity, the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), which must be paid to Mr. Díaz Peña by the State as reimbursement for expenses incurred for medical care,264 and also to cover future expenses for specialized medical treatment and other related costs, in the place where he resides.265 C.2) Non-pecuniary damage 162. The Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include both the suffering and anguish caused to the direct victim and his family, the harm to values of great significance to the individual, as well as the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”266 262 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, para. 187. 263 Cf. Medical report of July 19, 2010, signed by the Surgeon General, Dr. Francisco Manzanilla (evidence file, tome VI, folio 3300), and Medical report of February 25, 2011, signed by Dr. José Ramón Gutiérrez Longobardi (evidence file, tome VI, folio 3302) 264 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 185, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 366. 265 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 269. 266 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, para. 134. 54