State; expenses related to the inability to study; loss of possessions, and also harm to the physical, mental and emotional health of the family concerned. 280 183. The Court takes note that, in this case, the next of kin of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez were declared victims of the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection, as well as to personal integrity owing to his death and the impunity in which the case remains. Thus, it considers that what the representatives indicate as “damage to the family wealth” is not a direct consequence of these violations, and that, in this case, it is subsumed within the amounts for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Therefore, the Court will not order an additional amount for this concept. In the section on costs and expenses, the Court will assess those financial disbursements related to the expenses entailed by keeping open the proceedings and the demand for justice (supra para. 176 and infra para. 193). D.2. Non-pecuniary damage 184. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include both the suffering and afflictions caused by the violation, and also the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, as well as any change, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims.” 281 185. The representatives stated that “the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the next of kin of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, resulted from: (a) the violent death of a loved one at the hands of State agents; (b) the ineffectiveness of the system of justice to investigate the facts; (c) the distortion and concealment of the facts by public officials, some of them colleagues of the victim; (d) the versions aimed at harming the reputation of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez and creating impunity; (e) the failure of the criminal actions filed […] (despite persistent requests and direct investigations by the family members); (f) the intimidation, threats, attacks, and other acts of violence suffered by key witnesses in the judicial proceedings; (g) the accusations against them because they organized activities to avoid collective oblivion in relation to the crime; (h) the State’s lack of protection in the face of possible attacks by the perpetrators and masterminds interested in ensuring impunity, despite the fears expressed by the family[, and] (i) the State’s absence of political will and the disregard of the demands for justice by public officials and a deliberate lack of respect during the friendly settlement procedure.” In addition, the representatives argued as part of the non-pecuniary damage “the change in the living conditions of each member of the family.” Consequently, the representatives asked the Court to establish, in equity, a compensatory amount for the wife of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, his three children, his sister Nilda Gutiérrez, and his brother Francisco Gutiérrez. Meanwhile, in the Agreement, the parties asked the Court to rule on the scope of the reparations for the victims, which should include compensation for non-pecuniary damage, based on the principle of equity (supra para. 17). The Commission did not refer to this point. 186. As the Court has indicated on other occasions, 282 in cases such as this one, the nonpecuniary damage inflicted on the victim is evident. In this regard, the Court decides to order the State to pay compensation of US$75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand United States dollars) for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. This sum must be delivered integrally and in equal parts to the victim’s wife and children, respectively, Nilda del Valle Maldonado de Gutiérrez, Jorge Gabriel, Omar David and Marilin Verónica Gutiérrez. 280 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler, supra, para. 78, and Case of Baldeón García, supra, para. 186. 281 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra, para. 84, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 251. 282 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra, para. 142, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra, para. 194. 61