judgment in its entirety, available for one year on an official website accessible to the
public. The State must inform the Court immediately when it has made each of the
publications ordered, irrespective of the one-year time frame for presenting its first
report established in the tenth operative paragraph of this judgment.
C) Request for guarantees of non-repetition
103. The Commission requested the measures of non-repetition necessary to ensure
that both the applicable law and the respective practices of preventive detention are
compatible with inter-American standards. The representative and the State did not
make reference to this request.
104. The Court notes that Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applied in
this case, is not in effect at the time this judgment is being issued. Therefore, it is not
appropriate to grant guarantees of non-repetition.
D) Compensation
105. The Commission requested that Mr. Carranza be compensated “through
measures that cover pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage” produced as a consequence
of the declared violations.
106. The representative requested pecuniary compensation of not less than USD
$500,000.00 (five hundred thousand United States dollars).
107. The State rejected the representative’s allegations and asked the Court to
“assess the specific circumstances of the case.”
108. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept that pecuniary damage
supposes the loss of, or detriment to, the victims’ income, 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. 66 This Court has developed in its case law that non-pecuniary
damage may include both the suffering and affliction caused by the violation and also
the impairment of values of great significance to the individuals, as well as any alteration
of a non-pecuniary character in the living conditions of the victims. In addition, since it
is not possible to allocate a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, it
can only be compensated, for the purposes of comprehensive 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 sound judicial criteria and
based on equity. 67
109. The Court notes that the representative did not explain the grounds for his
monetary request, nor whether it corresponded to pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage.
The Court does not have evidence—nor have sufficient arguments been made—to
evaluate the supposed pecuniary damage in this case, so it does not consider it
Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002.
Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, para. 145.
66
67
Cf. 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, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, para. 158.
24