in the case of Fernando, María Angélica and Belkis Mirelis González “for almost 11 months of detention,” the sum of US$ 16,500 for each one and for Wilmer Barliza González, “for 8 months of detention,” US$ 12,000. b) As to non-pecuniary damages, in equity, for the death of Olimpiades González “a compensation of US$ 150,000 for each of the parents Fernando and Aura, in addition to the sum of US$ 20,000 for each of his siblings María Angélica, Belkis, Arianny, Laura Joselin, Alejandro and Fernando González (jr.).” For the arbitrary detentions and “the shameful conditions endured,” they requested in favor of Fernando, María Angélica and Belkis Mirelis González the sum of US$ 30,000 for each one, for Wilmer Antonio Barliza US$ 21,000 and for Luis Guillermo González US$ 8,000. 213. The Court has noted that pecuniary damages presuppose the loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses due to the events and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the events of the case.185 It has also established that non-pecuniary damages may include both the suffering and the afflictions caused to the direct victims and their relatives and the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, as well as alterations of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of victims and their families.186. 214. The Court believes that, given the nature of the events and the violations declared in this Judgment, the victims have suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages that should be compensated.187 However, it is not appropriate to order pecuniary or nonpecuniary damages to those individuals who were not declared victims (supra para. 16). Nor is it appropriate to order compensation for damages arising from the death of Olimpiades González since the State was not found responsible for his death. On the other hand, there is no evidence of a causal nexus between the declared violations in this Judgment and harm to the health of the victims mentioned by the representatives in their petition for pecuniary damages. It is also to be noted that the consequences on the personal integrity of the victims who were deprived of their liberty has been taken into consideration with respect to the measures of rehabilitation that have been ordered in this Judgment (supra para. 201 and infra para. 217). Finally, note should be taken that the representatives requested the setting of the monetary amounts, “in equity,” but did not provide sufficient evidence with respect to the monetary amount of the pecuniary damage that they allege. 215. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it appropriate to determine, in equity, and in order to repair in a unified or joint manner the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as compensation and in consideration of the different violations of human rights suffered by the victims, the following monetary amounts in favor of each of the victims and beneficiaries of reparations as indicated below: Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 130. 185 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 Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 132. 186 Fernando González, in his statement before the Court by videorecorder, stated that “he had to sell everything” to pay the expenses arising from the events of the case, although he did not expressly refer to which events caused those expenses. Similarly, Laura Joselin González, referring to the deprivations of liberty suffered by her family members, stated that the family had expenses “of food and transfer to the different areas of the penitentiary and the El Marite Center.” She also informed that her cousins Wilmer Antonio Barliza González and Luis Guillermo González had lost their jobs. (Cf. Written statement of Laura Joselin González before the Court.) 187 52