155 this measure to redress the next of kin of the victims, following the criteria for comprehensive reparations; d) the amounts recognized in similar cases (19 Tradesmen) have led to a shift from domestic to international jurisdiction, primarily moved by financial reasons. This breaches the high principles of both International Human Rights Law and domestic legislation, especially that of equality, since those who obtain access to these instances under sponsorship of organizations that specialize in human rights obtain costly settlements that, in the milieu in which these payments will be received, may constitute enrichment and not just compensation; and e) the fiscal effects of the new judgments on the public treasury may affect programs and projects that should benefit the greatest possible number of persons, because scarce existing resources will be used to pay compensation for the damage suffered by a few. Likewise, in view of the fiscal deficit, the State requested two years for compliance with the judgment and for the amount payable to be stated in Colombian legal currency. Considerations of the Court 282. Non-pecuniary harm can refer both to the suffering and the distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, as well as to detriment to the individuals’ very significant values, and also to non-pecuniary changes in the conditions of the victims’ existence. Since it is not possible to establish a precise monetary equivalent for non-pecuniary harm, for purposes of comprehensive reparations for the victims, it can only be compensated for in two ways. First, by means of payment of an amount set by the Court by reasonably applying judicial discretion and in terms of fairness. And secondly, by carrying out acts or works that are public in their scope or repercussions, such as sending a message of official reproval of the human rights violations involved and of commitment to efforts to avoid their repetition, with the effect of remembrance of the victims, acknowledgment of their dignity and consolation to their next of kin. The Court will address the first aspect of reparation of non-pecuniary damages in this section, and the second one in the section on other forms of reparation in this chapter.286 283. As the Court has pointed out in other cases,287 the non-pecuniary harm to the victims is evident, as it is in accordance with human nature for any person subjected to brutal acts in the context of the instant case to feel deep suffering, moral anguish, terror, and insecurity, for which reason there is no need for evidence of this damage. 284. According to what was established, before being executed the victims were deprived of their liberty and subjected to torture or to grave cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Signs of torture and the conditions in which some of the next of kin and witnesses found the bodies show not only the atrocious and barbarous nature of the facts, but also that, in the least cruel of these situations, the victims suffered grave psychological torture by witnessing the execution of other persons 286 See Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 7, para. 158; Case of Caesar, supra note 274, para. 125, and Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 274, para. 96. 287 See Case of Tibi, supra note 16, para. 244; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 4, para. 300, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 182, para. 217.