122 b) with respect to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, daughter of the victim (supra paras. 134.103 and 243), this Court notes that she was 16 years old at the time her mother was murdered, and she depended on her emotionally and financially, as she did not live with her father. She experienced a traumatic situation due to the unexpected loss of her mother, which caused her deep grief and sadness that still affect her life. She is hurt by the absence of her mother because at certain moments in her life, such as academic ones or motherhood, she feels the need to have her close to share their concerns and receive advice. She is also very concerned about her family and in constant fear of losing another beloved one. On the other hand, as regards the criminal proceeding, its constant delays have been frustrating for her and, especially, the fact that there is still impunity for those responsible makes her feel very insecure (supra para. 127.c). Due to all the above, this Court deems that she must be compensated for non-pecuniary damage; c) with respect to Yam Mack Choy, the deceased father of the victim, and Zoila Chang Lau, mother of the victim, attention must be paid to the fact that the Court assumes that the death of a person causes non-pecuniary damage to the parents, for which reason it is not necessary to prove this.286 As this Court has stated before, “we can admit the presumption that the parents have suffered mentally for the cruel death of their children, since it is human nature that every person feels pain in the face of the suffering of a child.”287 In the instant case, Yam Mack Choy, after the death of her daughter, in addition to the grief that this caused her, suffered physical illnesses that damaged his health and put an end to his life. The mother of the victim, in turn, has suffered deep grief, which she tried to express as follows in her sworn statement: To recall my daughters death means to continue asking: why did they kill her?, if she was always good, intelligent, and studious, with high ideals and without personal ambitions. Her friends have always expressed the warm feelings and affection they felt for her and they all agree that she always showed great solidarity, that she struggled for the truth and for the neediest, and therefore I still do not understand why she died. I have dreamt of her several times, this has always heartened me a little because I feel that it is a way to keep in touch, but I also suffer very much when I do not dream of her because I feel that she is far away and I become very sad. I never thought that one of my children would die before me, her death has been a very harsh blow for me because I feel that I did not protect her enough. I ask myself why I did not realize that something was wrong, I should have told her to go travel for some time, while the bad times passed, I do not know, something could have been done to avoid what happened. It is not fair that they killed her if she was so good. After Myrna’s murder, my husband suffered a terrible disappointment in the way he thought about our country; like myself, he did not understand how that could have happened to his daughter. He began to have health problems, suffered deep depressions, and I suspect that it was the death of his oldest 286 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 277, para. 88 a); Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations, supra note 248, paras. 37 and 61 a); and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 277, para. 66. 287 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 277, para. 88 b); Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 88; and Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 142.