requested for the next of kin of Ricardo David Videla, it emphasized that they had received pecuniary compensation under the friendly settlement agreement endorsed by the Commission in Report No. 84/11. D.1.2. Considerations of the Court 348. Regarding the amounts requested by the representative for loss of earnings, the Court observes that she forwarded a table to the Court showing the evolution of the minimum living wage in Argentina between 1964 and 2008; decisions issued by the National Council for Employment, Productivity and the Minimum Living and Mobile Wage in 2009, 2010 and 2011 establishing changes to the minimum wage during those years; and a table outlining life expectancy at birth in Argentina for 2003 to 2011. 409 However, the Court observes that it does not have any evidence to prove that the youths César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla performed remunerated activities prior to the imposing of the life sentences or other facts that resulted in the human rights violations declared in this case (supra para. 346). Therefore, the Court does not consider it appropriate to order reparations under this heading. 349. Regarding consequential damage, the Court observes that the representative only specified the alleged expenses incurred by some of the next of kin of the said victims. 410 In addition, the Court does not have probative elements that prove the amounts that the next of kin of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla would have disbursed to cover the costs of transfers to the detention centers where the youths were being held and to provide them with food or other essential items for their personal hygiene. Nevertheless, the Court finds it reasonable to presume that these family members incurred expenses of this type during the period in which the victims were detained, which was prolonged owing to the imposing of life sentences in violation of their human rights. Therefore, as compensation for pecuniary damage, the Court establishes, in equity, the amount of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars) in favor of each of the following persons: Isolina del Carmen Herrera, Romina Beatriz Muñoz, Ana María del Valle Brito, Jorgelina Amalia Díaz, Marta Graciela Olguín, Florinda Rosa Cajal and Stella Maris Fernández. D.2. Non-pecuniary damage 350. The Court has developed in its case law the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that it “may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their families, the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, and other alterations of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their families.” 411 D.2.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 351. The Commission considered that the State should “provide adequate non-pecuniary compensation for the human rights violations declared in the [Merits Report …].” The 409 Cf. Annex XL, Minimum Living and Mobile Wage (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIV, folios 7692 to 7705). 410 The representative referred to Isolina del Carmen Herrera, Romina Beatriz Muñoz, Ana María del Valle Brito, Jorgelina Amalia Díaz, Marta Graciela Olguín, Florinda Rosa Cajal and Stella Maris Fernández. 411 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 García and family members v. Guatemala, para. 224. 109