30 Sánchez[,] in the context of the arbitrary detention of [Juan Humberto Sánchez], the uncertainty about his whereabouts, the suffering deriving from not knowing the circumstances of his death, the anguish owing to the injuries that were apparent on his corpse, the pain caused by the fact that he was interred in the place where he was found, and their frustration and defenselessness owing to the lack of results of the investigations into the In other words, the facts by the Honduran public authorities.”75 compensation for this concept established in favor of María Dominga Sánchez, Juan José Vijil Hernández and Donatila Argueta Sánchez was not based, as the State alleges, on a “capricious” decision by the Court, but on the actions of the State, which the Court declared had violated the American Convention in its judgment of June 7, 2003. Likewise, the Court examined the second point, namely, compensation for the change of residence which the next of kin of Juan Humberto Sánchez were forced to make “as a consequence of the harassment they began to suffer after the facts of the instant case.”76 63. In summary, in the instant case, the Court granted compensation under several headings included in the broadest category of pecuniary damage, consistent This with its own case law,77 which must be complied with by the State. compensation must be paid to Donatila Argueta Sánchez, Juan José Vijil Hernández, María Dominga Sánchez, Domitila Vijil Sánchez and Reina Isabel Sánchez, in their own right, as compensation for the damage they were caused directly by the State’s actions, and as victims of those actions. Whether or not they are acknowledged to be successors of Juan Humberto Sánchez in the domestic law of the State is irrelevant, because their status of beneficiaries of the reparations for indirect damage and loss of earnings is determined directly by the damage that was caused to them. 64. In the same way, based on the inherent rights of the next of kin of Juan Humberto Sánchez, as victims with the right to a reparation, the Court determined a compensation for non-pecuniary damage, taking into account also that “the reigning impunity in this case has caused and continues to cause suffering for the next of kin, which makes them feel vulnerable and in a state of permanent defenselessness before the State, a situation that causes them profound anguish, as has been demonstrated.”78 65. Moreover, these next of kin also suffered owing to the violations of the rights of Juan Humberto Sánchez, because his sufferings as the victim of the violation of 75 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 166.c). 76 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 166.d). 77 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, paras. 84-89; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 162-167; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 84-93; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, paras. 65 and 71 to 76; Bámaca Velásquez case, Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 43 and 50 to 55; Cantoral Benavides case, Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 47-52; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 78 to 83; the White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 91 to 100, 115 to 120, 131 to 138, 149 to 153 and 164 to 170; Blake case, Reparations, supra note 46, paras. 47 to 50; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 25, paras. 58 to 60; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 74 to 77; and Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 128-133. 78 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 176.