LGBTI+ persons, disaggregating the data by community, race, ethnic origin, religion or belief, health status, age, class and migratory or economic situation.” 212 Therefore, the Court does not consider it necessary to reiterate this measure of reparation to Peru, since compliance with it is currently being analyzed by the Court in the corresponding monitoring compliance stage. 160. With regard to the seventh, eighth, tenth and eleventh reparation measures requested by the representatives (supra para. 149), the Court does not find any causal link between the violations declared and the said reparations; therefore it is not appropriate to order them. 161. Finally, regarding the seven additional measures of reparation requested by the representatives in their final written arguments (supra para. 150), the Court considers, as it has done in other cases, 213 that it is not appropriate to grant these requests, since they were submitted extemporaneously. E. Compensation 162. The Commission requested, in general terms, “full” reparation for the human rights violations declared in the Merits Report. 163. The representatives requested that the Court award the sum of USD$ 75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand United States dollars) for the moral damage caused by the Peruvian authorities, in validating the discriminatory treatment suffered by Mr. Olivera Fuentes for publicly showing affection to his partner, and for the physical and psychological ailments resulting from the denial of justice for 17 years. 164. The State argued that there was no basis to justify the amount claimed by the representatives. 165. The Court has established in its case law that non-pecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, the impairment of values that are very significant to them, as well as changes of a nonpecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.” However, since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary value to non-pecuniary damage, this can only be compensated, for the purposes of comprehensive reparation to victims, through the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services that can be estimated in monetary terms, as prudently determined by the Court, in application of judicial discretion and the principle of equity. 214 166. The Court confirms that Mr. Olivera suffered discriminatory treatment on the part of the administrative and judicial authorities. Such treatment further intensified the Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 252. Cf. Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 165 and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 128. 214 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 476, para. 99. 212 213 57