101 included in this item, such as medical or psychological attention;” however, the State was willing to make this reparation as soon as the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco proved “[t]he expenses already referred to.” 368. The Court acknowledges that the actions and processes carried out by the next of kin of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco to locate him generated expenses that shall be considered consequential damages, especially what refers to the actions tending to discover his whereabouts before different authorities, and it will so include them upon setting the corresponding compensation in the present section. However, regarding the mentioned loss of several properties the Radilla Martínez family apparently had, the Tribunal warns that from the evidence provided by the representatives sufficient elements that could allow it to establish the alleged damage and its connection to the facts of the forced disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco cannot be inferred; therefore, it will not set a specific amount in this regard. 369. With regard to the alleged expenses for medical and psychiatric attention incurred in by the victims in the present case, the Court warns that the representatives did not present evidence, either receipts, medical histories or certificates, among others, based on which it could establish that in fact they received medical attention due to the effects of these facts and that they incurred in other expenses in this sense. Similarly, the representatives did not present an estimate of those expenses. Even though the Court has established that due to the nature and seriousness of the facts that constitute a forced disappearance, the victims in the present case have suffered grave psychological effects that result evident (supra paras. 168 through 172), in order for the Court to be able to order the reimbursement for consequential damages, they must be proven. Due to the aforementioned, it is not appropriate to set an amount in this regard in the present case. 370. Therefore, the Court sets, in equity, a compensation of US $ 1,300.00 (one thousand three hundred dollars of the United States of America) pursuant with that indicated in this section (supra paras. 161 through 172). That amount shall be delivered in equal parts to the beneficiaries in the present case (supra para. 328). D2. Non-pecuniary damage 371. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence the concept of non-pecuniary damages and the assumptions in which it shall be compensated.330 372. The Commission requested that the Tribunal order the payment of a compensation, in equity, for the non-pecuniary damage resulting from the forced disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco “[d]ue to the grave circumstances of the present case, the intensity of the sufferings the corresponding facts caused the victims and his next of kin, [and] the alterations of the living conditions of the [same].” The representatives also asked the Court to set, in equity, a compensation for this item. 373. The State mentioned that “[u]sing as a reference the judgment of the […] Court in the case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, [it offered] as a reparation measure to 330 The Tribunal has established that non-pecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and the afflictions caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the damage to values that are very important to the persons, as well as the alterations, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the conditions of existence of the victim or his next of kin.” 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; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 64, para. 224, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 43, para. 111.