62 bearing in mind that no one should be made richer by the reparations granted by the Court.” 216. Regarding the loss of earnings corresponding to Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, the Court observes that, at the time of the facts, he “worked with a friend in a lumber yard in Medellín”155 and, as indicated in Chapter VII of this judgment, was forced to go into exile owing to the facts of this case. Based on the foregoing, the Court establishes, in equity, as it has in other cases,156 the sum of US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) for the loss of earnings of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa. This amount shall be delivered directly to Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa within one year of notification of this judgment. 217. Regarding the alleged indirect damage caused to Carlos Fernando Jaramillo and his family by the loss of possessions and properties owing to his departure from Colombia as a refugee, the Court observes that Carlos Fernando Jaramillo stated in his testimony before the Court that this presumed loss commenced as a result of the alleged forced displacement that occurred before the facts of this case. In this regard, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo stated that he continued to be involved in the production and administration of his farms “until the beginning of 1997, because with [the arrival of a] paramilitary group in the municipal capital of Ituango […] everything became more difficult [and] the only person who [was able to administer] the farm [was his] father, [who] was the only one who went into Ituango.” He also testified that, at the time of the facts in 1998, he was working in Medellín.157 Similarly, Saúl Jaramillo Giraldo testified that, in “1996 […] Carlos Fernando [had to leave Ituango] owing to the threats he had received [from members of the paramilitary groups].”158 218. Based on the above, it is clear that the possessions and properties of the family of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa in the municipality of Ituango were being administered by his father before the facts of the instant case occurred and that Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa had been displaced from Ituango since 1996, owing to the unsafe situation caused by the paramilitary presence in that municipality. Hence, the Court finds that the causal nexus between the alleged loss of those possessions and properties and the facts of the instant case has not been proved. Consequently, the Court will not order the State to pay compensation for actual damages in relation to these alleged facts. B.2) Non-pecuniary damage 219. The Court will determine the non-pecuniary damage according to the guidelines established in its case law.159 155 Statement made by the witness, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, supra note 97. 156 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 15, paras. 49 and 50; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 151, and Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 57, para. 163. 157 Cf. Statement made by the witness, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, supra note 97. 158 Statement made by the witness, Saúl Jaramillo Giraldo, supra note 74 (folio 2226). 159 Non-pecuniary damage may comprise the pain and suffering caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the impairment of values that are significant to an individual, and also the non-pecuniary damage caused by alterations in the living conditions of the victim and his next of kin. Since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary amount to such damage, it can only be compensated by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services with a pecuniary value that the Court establishes, in equity, as well as by means of acts or works of a public scope or impact designed to acknowledge the dignity of the victim and avoid the occurrence of human rights violations. Cf. The “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 164, and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Law Court”), supra note 141, para. 237.