and, subsequently, were forced “to support infrahuman living conditions”; (b) that the children who were abducted from their communities in order to be used as slaves were deprived of their childhood; (c) that the members of the Río Negro community were deprived of their customs, religion and family life, and (d) that the grave human rights violations committed in this case remain unpunished. Based on the foregoing, the representatives asked the Court to establish, in equity, for non-pecuniary damage, the amount of US$30,000.00 for the survivors of the massacres. 306. The State considered that the amounts requested by the representatives “are too high, taking into account the country’s economic situation.” It affirmed that, in other cases of a collective nature, the Court had established the amounts to be paid by family unit and not by victim, and considered that the same should apply in this case, but it did not explain why this would be applicable. Also, the State asked the Court to “assess the possibility” that it make an “actuarial study” in order to provide the Court with “other criteria when determining the eventual compensation” to be paid. D.2.2. Considerations of the Court 307. This Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes loss of or detriment to the victims’ income, the expenses incurred owing to the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.367 Meanwhile, nonpecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and grief caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the harm to values that have great significance for the persons, as well as the changes of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”368 Furthermore, the Court has held “that it is inherent in human nature that any person who suffers a violation to their human rights experiences suffering; consequently, the non-pecuniary damage is evident.369 308. This Court observes that the representatives did not indicate for whom it requested the amount of US$25,000.00 as compensation for pecuniary damage. The Court does not have elements to prove the loss of income and earnings suffered by the victims in this case as a result of the facts that fall within the Court’s competence. However, Court finds it logical that, in cases such as this, the collection of evidence to prove this type of pecuniary loss and its presentation to the Court is a complex task. In addition, it is evident that the human rights violations declared in the instant case necessarily entail grave pecuniary consequences. 309. Based on the criteria established in the Court’s consistent case law, the circumstances of this case, the importance, nature, and seriousness of the violations committed, the damage generated by the impunity, and the physical, moral and mental sufferings caused to the victims,370 the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the amounts indicated below or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, which must be paid within the corresponding time frame established 367 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 43, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 309. 368 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 318. 369 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 176, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra, para. 190. 370 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 109, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 278. 103