76 279. Likewise, the Court observed that in 2006 compensation was paid to an additional list of 40 victims, of which 37 requested compensation for material losses, and 3 for human losses. The State indicated that the compensation agreed at that time was distributed as follows: for the victims of material losses Q. 41.740 (fortyone thousand seven hundred and forty quetzales), and for victims of human losses Q. 91.740 (ninety one thousand seven hundred and forty quetzales). 280. In this regard, the Court notes that only five people in the aforementioned list are victims in the instant case, namely: 1) Inocencio González, 2) Santos Nicolás Montepeque Galicia, 3) Pedro Antonio Montepeque García and 4) Albina Jiménez Flores, and 5) Venancio Jiménez Flores, and that each of them was paid US$ 5,499.34 (five thousand four hundred and ninety-nine US dollars with thirty-four cents) for material losses279. 281. In this regard, the Court notes that the State, in conformity with the friendly settlement agreement signed by the State and the representatives, in the proceeding before the Commission, paid the compensations awarded to the beneficiaries, as indicated by the State itself (supra para. 278 and 279). Consequently, the Court does not consider it necessary to establish additional compensations for material damages nor to order the deduction of the aforementioned compensation. 282. Lastly, the Court notes that the family groups compensated at that time include the victims in the instant case. b) Determination of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the proceeding before the Court 283. Without detriment to the above, in chapter X of this Judgment, the Court concluded that in the instant case the denial of justice has affected the mental and moral integrity of the 155 victims, two of them survivors. Consequently, the Court must determine fair compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. 284. The Court notes that from the expert opinions provided by Nieves Gómez Dupuis,280 it can be inferred that “[t]he lack of justice leads to that […] the blame is revert[ed] to the victims, who are stigmatized [and that the] fear that the same will occur again […] makes psychological reparation very difficult, [if not] impossible.”281 Additionally, it indicates that the victims expressed feelings of rage, fury, anger, sadness, insecurity, discouragement, vengeance, and impotence, which have also affected the second generation of surviving victims and next of kin. Additionally, the lack of justice caused a loss of opportunities for the surviving victims and next of kin, damaging their life projects. Likewise, it indicates that this situation has caused the dissociation of some individuals from the legal process due to the fear and retraumatizing caused by speaking about the case. 278 Cf. Table of “checks paid and their status” of November 30, 2001 (file on appendixes to the answer to the application, appendix 10, fs. 12374 to 12379). 279 Cf. Proof of payments (file of appendixes to the answer to the application, appendix 11, Volume 2, fs. 12846, 12851, 12860, 12861 and 12881). 280 Cf. Expert opinion of Nieves Gómez Dupuis rendered on June 8, 2009, supra note 266, fs. 618 to 636, and expert opinion of Nieves Gómez Dupuis of August 2005, supra note 148, fs. 2801 to 2824. 281 Cf. Expert opinion of Nieves Gómez Dupuis rendered on June 8, 2009, supra note 266, fs. 633 and expert opinion of Nieves Gómez Dupuis of August 2005, supra note 148, fs. 2811.