one-year time frame for presentation of its first report established in operative paragraph 9 of this judgment. D) Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 61. In the friendly settlement agreement, under the section entitled “pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparation,” the State committed to delivering a sum of money pursuant to the terms and conditions indicated in the agreement. 62. According to the provisions of the agreement, the amount set for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages would be paid by the State "immediately upon signing" of the agreement. The agreement also indicated that the distribution of the respective amounts among the beneficiaries, although indicated in the agreement, “depends purely on the internal agreement among those of them who are alive" and that "responsibility for allotting and distributing the amounts to each individual victim falls exclusively to the shared attorneys appointed for this purpose," who are named in the agreement. 63. Consistent with the foregoing, in the first paragraph of point eight of the agreement, entitled “Payment deadline and form," the agreement established a single and total amount that the State committed to paying out. 64. The Court deems it appropriate to approve the reparations to which the State has committed in the friendly settlement agreement for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. It also deems it appropriate to approve the provisions of the agreement with respect to not making "reference to the compensation, for reasons of the victims’ safety," for which reason it has omitted the respective amounts from this judgment. 65. The Court notes that on September 22, 2022(supra paras. 8 and 10) the representatives stated that "the pecuniary compensation part of the agreement has met with compliance." Therefore, without prejudice to the part below regarding William Huacón, this Court will not supervise compliance with the pecuniary measures of reparation. 66. In view of what has been previously expressed in this judgment(supra paras. 31, 41 to 44 and 46), this Court will now determine a measure of reparation to the benefit of William Huacón. With respect to the non-pecuniary damage he experienced, the Court emphasizes first that the State has recognized that, as a result of the facts of the case, several of his rights were violated, including the right to personal integrity(supra para. 43). This Court also notes that William Huacón was present at the family gathering that took place on March 31, 1997, and that he provided the car to Mr. Huacón Baidal and Ms. Salazar Cueva in which they were executed. The deaths of Mr. Huacón and Ms. Salazar took place near the residence where the family gathering—at which Mr. Huacón was present—took place. All of the above indicates a proximity to the facts that must presumably have caused harm to William Huacón’s integrity of person. This can be gleaned not only from the Merits Report, but also from the initial petition and suit for compensation filed by Mr. Huacón and Ms. Salazar's relatives on April 13, 2000. 22 Therefore, in view of the particular circumstances of the case, in equity, and as reparation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by this victim, the Court determines 22 Cf. Suit for compensation of April 13, 2000, filed before the Civil Judge of Guayas (evidence file, annex 1(1) to the Merits Report, fs. 783 to 785). 16