64 result of the events and pecuniary consequences causally linked to the violations.166 Non-pecuniary damage may encompass both the suffering and distress caused to the victims of human rights violations and their next of kin and the impairment of highly significant values in connection with the individuals or their living conditions.167 159. In the instant case, the representative bases his request for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on Mr. Almonacid-Arellano’s death. Thus, for example, he refers to the allowances received by Mr. Almonacid-Arellano’s next of kin as compensation since 1992, Mr. Almonacid-Arellano’s life expectancy and lost earnings, and the pain suffered by his relatives for losing a next of kin in the violent circumstances of the instant case. Additionally, the Commission requests that “compensation for pecuniary and moral damage, additional to those already obtained by the family, be granted as may be deemed relevant;” that is to say, that the Court increase the amount received by Mr. Almonacid-Arellano’s next of kin as compensation for his death. 160. The violations described in this Judgment refer to the denial of justice suffered by Mr. Almonacid-Arellano’s next of kin and the failure of the State to comply with its general duties as set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. Therefore, the reparations ordered in this instance must refer solely to these aspects and not to those ones on which the Court has issued no ruling for lack of ratione temporis jurisdiction. Neither the representative nor the Commission have filed arguments or evidence to prove that the violations described in this Judgment caused pecuniary damage. Accordingly, the Court shall not award any compensation in this regard. 161. Regarding to non-pecuniary damage, the Court acknowledges that the victims of the instant case suffered as a result of the denial of justice arising from the facts analyzed in the foregoing chapters. Likewise, it takes cognizance of the representative’s remark that the main interest of the victims of this case lies in achieving justice. On the other hand, the Court makes a positive assessment of the policy of reparation of human rights violations advanced by the State (supra paras. 82(26) to 82(33)), pursuant to which Mrs. Gómez-Olivares and her children received an approximate amount of US$ 98,000.00 (ninety-eight thousand United States Dollars), plus educational benefits in an approximate amount of US$ 12,180.00 (twelve thousand, a hundred and eighty United States Dollars). In the light of the foregoing, the Court decides not to order the payment of economic compensation for non-pecuniary damage, for it believes, as in other cases, that this judgment is in and of itself a form of reparation,168 and that the measures described in paragraphs 145 to 157 of this Judgment constitute due reparation under Article 63(1) of the American Convention. * * * 166 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 14, para. 220; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 14, para. 183; and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 216. 167 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al., supra note 155, para. 130; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 14, para. 383; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 14, para. 188. 168 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al., supra note 155, para. 131; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 14, para. 236; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 14, para. 387.