80 Arguments of the State 79. The State indicated that: a) It cannot deny the need to compensate the “non-pecuniary” and pecuniary damage caused to the victims and next of kin of the Plan de Sánchez village, which are irreparable; b) The process of paying financial reparation should begin in 2005, so that it is duly programmed and planned in the 2005 General Budget of Income and Expenditure of the Nation. In complying with this process, the magnitude of the needs and rights that the State must guarantee to all its inhabitants must be taken into account, and also the criteria established by the Court, in the sense that the amount of the reparations should not make the victims or their successors either richer or poorer; and c) The financial reparations decided must be executed within the framework of the National Compensation Program, in accordance with the rules of domestic legislation. Article 1 of Government Agreement No. 2582003 of the President of the Republic, published in the official gazette on May 8, 2003, stipulates that the specific purpose of the program is “to compensate the victims of human rights violations that took place during the internal armed conflict.” It has also been established that the beneficiaries of the program include those resulting from cases that were submitted to the InterAmerican Commission prior to the plan, and that are pending a ruling. Considerations of the Court 80. Non-pecuniary damage can include the suffering and hardship caused to the direct victims and to their next of kin, the harm of objects of value that are very significant to the individual, and also changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims. Since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, it can only be compensated in two ways in order to make integral reparation to the victims. First, by the payment of a sum of money that the Court decides by the reasonable exercise of judicial discretion and in terms of fairness. Second, by performing acts or implementing projects with public recognition or repercussion, such as broadcasting a message that officially condemns the human rights violations in question and makes a commitment to efforts designed to ensure that it does not happen again. Such acts have the effect of restoring the memory of the victims, acknowledging their dignity, and consoling their next of kin. The first aspect of reparation for non-pecuniary damage will be considered in this section and the second in section (D) of this chapter.257 81. International case law has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.258 However, in the judgment on merits delivered on April 29, 2004, this Court established that events such as those of the instant case, “which gravely affected the identity and values of the members of the Maya-Achí people, and which took placed in the context of a pattern of massacres, 257 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 242; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 295, and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 204. 258 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 243; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 299, and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 205.