111 of terrorism from benefiting from the Comprehensive Reparations Plan, created by Law 28,592 of July 28, 2005, was raised by the representatives for the first time in their request for reparations and, therefore, did not form part of the purpose of the litigation on the merits of this case, the Court has not ruled on the compatibility of this law with the Convention, pursuant to Article 2 thereof. Consequently, it is not incumbent on the Court to rule on the requested measure. C.3.4. Rehabilitation of women victims of sexual violence during the Peruvian conflict 331. In this case, the Court has established that the generalized practice of rape and other forms of sexual violence was used as a war strategy and particularly affected women in the context of the Peruvian conflict from 1980 to 2000 (supra paras. 67, 228 and 229). Consequently, the Court considers that, if it does not already have one, the State must implement a mechanism that allows all women victims of such violations who request this to have access free of charge, through the State’s public institutions, to specialized medical, psychological and/or psychiatric rehabilitation to redress this type of violation. C.4. Other measures requested 332. The representatives asked that the Court order the State to organize an act of public apology and redress, and acknowledgement of international responsibility, owing to the facts of this case. In this regard, the Court considers that the delivery of this Judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and appropriate to make reparation for the violations suffered by the victims and does not find it necessary to order this measure. D) Compensation 333. The representatives indicated that neither Gladys Espinoza nor her brother or mother have had access to reparation under the national reparations plan. They also referred to the severe harm caused by the violations perpetrated against Gladys Espinoza, added to the fact that she will have served her sentence in 2018, at an advanced age, with various mental and physical health problems, and without any support to be able to live decently. They therefore asked the Court to allocate an amount, in equity, for non-pecuniary damage to the victims. The Commission did not make any request in this regard. The State asked the Court to rule in accordance with the criteria and guidelines established in its judgments. In addition, it recalled that the nature and amount of the reparations depends on the nature of the violations committed and the harm caused, and that these should bear a relationship to the violations declared in the Judgment. Thus, it asked that the Court apply the precedents established in the cases of Castillo Petruzzi et al. and Lori Berenson Mejía, both against Peru and, consequently, not grant the financial compensation requested by the representatives. 334. The Court takes note that neither the Commission nor the representatives requested payment for pecuniary damage; hence, in this case, it will not order compensation for that concept. However, it has verified the pain and suffering experienced by Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles, Teodora Gonzáles de Espinoza and Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles due to the facts of this case. Consequently, and pursuant to the criteria developed by the Court with regard to the concept of non-pecuniary damage, 494 the Court considers that the State must, in equity, pay the following sums of money (in United States dollars) to the victims: (a) US$60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars) for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Gladys Carol 494 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 Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 156.