national newspaper with widespread circulation, and (c) This judgment in its entirety on an official web site, available for one year. 253. In this case, the Court finds that, among other effects, this measure will contribute to satisfactory compliance with the guarantee of non-repetition established above. B.2. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage 254. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to “order the State to pay appropriate compensation for the damage suffered due to the violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention that were declared to the detriment of the victims identified in the Report on Merits and the […] application.” The Commission made that request “notwithstanding any claims that the representatives of the victims may file at the appropriate time during the proceedings.” It added that “the loss of savings of approximately 1,500 families who were counting on those resources for their living expenses has caused [them] untold suffering and has had a devastating effect on these persons.” In addition, the Commission indicated that many of them are “of an advanced age” and that “approximately 100 individuals have died without obtaining justice.” 255. In their brief with final arguments, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay “appropriate compensation” for “the non-pecuniary damage suffered, which should be 33% of the capital deposited.” In addition, regarding the impact of the violations, they emphasized that the victims they represent “include 80 individuals of from 70 to 97 years of age, one of them blind, who have been deprived of a dignified old age owing to this matter.” They added that the victims “were deprived of their life savings, and this has caused a situation of extreme desperation which, in many cases resulted in illness as well as one premature death and, in others, led directly to suicide.” 256. The State indicated that reparation for non-pecuniary damage is “totally inadmissible” because “the matter relates […] exclusively to private capital; in other words, the recovery of alleged rights to credit or the recuperation of savings or investments placed in private entities.” 257. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage284 and the situations in which it must be compensated. 258. Regarding the compensation for non-pecuniary damages requested by the representatives, the Court recalls that it has not ruled on the merits of the victims’ petitions under article 31 of Law 17,613, because it is not incumbent on this Court to make that determination. 259. Therefore, the Court does not find non-pecuniary compensation based on the amount of the victims' alleged deposits admissible. Nevertheless, the Court must recognize that the violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection declared in this judgment (supra paras. 140 to 142, 183 to 185 and 218 to 220) caused non-pecuniary damage, owing to the uncertainty in the determination of their rights. It 284 The Court has established that non-pecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and hardship caused to the direct victim and to his next of kin, the harm of values that are of great personal significance, and also the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.” Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 276, para. 84; Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 251, para. 150, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 231. 91