F. Compensation 145. The Commission requested, in general terms, comprehensive redress for the human rights violations declared in the Merits Report. It also argued that the State should adopt the appropriate pecuniary compensation measures. 146. The representative requested that Mr. López be fully compensated for “both material and immaterial damages.” In particular, he asked the Court to award a sum of USD$ 800,000.00 “for the damage done to [Mr.] Jorge Luis López’s physical and mental health.” Specifically, the representative argued that Mr. López suffered physical and psychological attacks that caused him serious moral damage. He pointed out that his client’s marriage disintegrated following the acts of torture, leading to the “destruction of his family relationships.” Finally, he said that Mr. López had lost his job and rank as a result of the proceedings brought against him. 147. The State argued that the amount claimed was not justified “and much less proven.” In relation to the alleged physical damages, it maintained that there was no evidence in the case file to support the claim. Regarding psychological damage, it pointed out that Mr. López had made use of the Police Hospital’s services, but decided to stop receiving treatment because “he felt better.” It also suggested that Mr. López’s divorce had no causal link with the instant case. Finally, with regard to Mr. López’s loss of employment, the State pointed out that the alleged victim was relieved of his duties on June 20, 2000, but reinstated on the same terms and conditions on December 12, 2003. It also noted that Mr. López was promoted to deputy inspector (subcomisario) by Presidential Decree 1,430/2008 and then, by Decree 2689/2013, to inspector (comisario). Finally, it pointed out that since 2017 Mr. López had served as chief inspector (comisario principal). 148. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it must be compensated. The Court has established that pecuniary damage involves loss of or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the pecuniary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case. 217 149. Likewise, 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 non-pecuniary 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. 218 150. The Court notes that, although Mr. López did not work for the National Police for more than three years, the representative did not provide proof of any kind of the material damage the victim actually suffered. Nonetheless, the Court considers that the violations proven in this judgment did the victim financial harm. Moreover, the Court Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 201. 218 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. supra, para. 165. 217 41