and his family group and the State had provided them with redress in compliance with its duty by applying criminal justice against Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and his accomplices for the unlawful act they had committed. The State rejected this measure of reparation and asked the Court to declare it inadmissible. 243. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it should be compensated. The Court has established that pecuniary damage encompasses the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case. 251 In addition, the Court has established in its case law that non-pecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and afflictions caused by the violation and the impairment of values of great significance to the individual and any alteration, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims.” Furthermore, since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary equivalent to the non-pecuniary damage, it can only be compensated, for the purposes of making full reparation to the victim, by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services with a monetary value that the Court determines in reasonable application of judicial discretion and based on equity.252 244. In this case, the Court, taking into account the particularities of the case and the causal nexus of the violations that have been declared, will only rule on non-pecuniary damage. Based on the circumstances of the case, the violations committed, the different degrees of suffering caused and experienced, the time that has passed and the denial of justice, the Court will establish, in equity, compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victims. 245. Consequently, the Court orders, in equity, the payment of US$60,000 (sixty thousand United States dollars), for non-pecuniary damage, in favor of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. The amount established by the Court must be delivered within one year of notification of this judgment based on the following criteria: a) Twenty-five per cent (25%) of the compensation must be delivered to Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’s spouse, S.J.M.; b) Twenty-five per cent (25%) of the compensation must be delivered to Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ permanent companion, A.M.V.; c) The remaining fifty per cent (50%) of the compensation must be shared in equal parts between his children. If one or several of the children are deceased, the part that would correspond to them will increase the part of the other children of the victim. 246. In addition, the Court orders, in equity, payment of US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars), for non-pecuniary damage, to Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’s sister for the violations that have been proved to her detriment, and that resulted in violations of her physical, moral and mental integrity. F. Costs and expenses 247. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay the costs and expenses related to the processing of the case in both the domestic sphere and before the inter-American system. Specifically, they indicated that the ICCPG had spearheaded the search for justice in this case, both at the domestic level where they acted as plaintiffs in representation of the victim’s family for several years, and at the international level, since 2003. In the exercise of this representation they had Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 43, and Case of Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 80. 252 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 82. 251 53