134. The representatives asked the Court to order compensatory damages for the material harm suffered by Ángel Acosta Martínez and Blanca Rosa Martínez. They indicated that “throughout the process to exhaust domestic remedies and pursue international actions, the family of José Delfín Acosta Martínez incurred expenses that included travel to and from Uruguay, starting with the trip of Blanca Rosa Martínez at the time of the death of José Delfín Acosta Martínez, the steps taken to repatriate the remains, and the legal actions taken in Uruguay to obtain the second autopsy, as well as repeated and countless trips throughout the subsequent process.” They likewise indicated that "Ángel Acosta Martínez had to stop working and go into exile as a result of the attacks and physical injuries suffered, having to pay for not only the journey to Spain, but the return trip and the moving costs” as well as “[t]he funeral expenses of José Delfín Acosta Martínez.” 135. Following its acknowledgment of responsibility, the State did not issue any statement specifically on this measure of reparations. 136. In view of the circumstances of this case, the Court considers it reasonable to order the State to pay compensation for pecuniary damages to the victims. Because the representatives did not provide information making it possible to establish with certainty the amount of pecuniary damages caused by the facts under examination in this case, this Court sets, in equity, the amount of US$64,000 (sixty-four thousand dollars of the United States of America) for the loss of income of José Delfín Acosta Martínez, to be divided equally between his mother and his brother. 137. Likewise, taking into account the physical damages suffered, the loss of income, and the expenses incurred from travel and securing expert opinions and pursuing legal actions, the amount of US$15,000 (fifteen thousand dollars of the United States of America) is set for indirect damages to the benefit of Ángel Acosta Martínez and US$10,000 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) to the benefit of Blanca Rosa Martínez. Both payments shall be made directly to the victims. F.2. Non-pecuniary damage 138. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his family, and also the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, as well as the alterations of a non-pecuniary character in the living conditions of victims or their families.166 139. The Commission asked the Court to order comprehensive non-pecuniary damages for the victims. 140. The representatives asked the Court to “establish compensatory reparations commensurate with the sufferings and afflictions experienced” as a result of the fact that “José Delfín Acosta Martínez lost his life and his family had to start down a difficult path of loss and struggle, to which the facts described caused irreparable harm.” As for Blanca Rosa Martínez, they indicated that she “had to fight an unequal battle from abroad, in which there was no rest until now [because] not only did she lose her son José Delfín Acosta Martínez, but she had to suffer the absence of her other son, Ángel Acosta Martínez, and fear for his safety.” Lastly, regarding Ángel Acosta Martínez, they indicated that he “had to […] handle 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 Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 77. 166 38