E.2. Non-pecuniary damage 145. The Commission requested that the State “provide full reparation for the human rights violations […], including [… the] non-pecuniary aspect.” 146. Mr. Casa Nina indicated that the State’s actions had caused severe physical, mental and emotional harm to both himself and his family and had had a dramatic impact on his life project, especially for his children as their lifestyle had changed because, due to the family’s financial situation, they were transferred from a private college to a State college. Therefore, he requested: “For the victim the sum of US$150,000 [United States] dollars. For [his] spouse the sum of US$50,000 [United States] dollars. For [his] children the sum of US$100,000 [United States] dollars (US$50,000 each). These amounts total US$300,000 [United States] dollars.” 147. He also indicated that violations of rights that could be attributed to the State had caused harm to his life project in the personal, employment, social, professional, family and financial spheres and therefore requested the sum of US$100,000 (one hundred thousand United States dollars). 148. The State argued that the victim had not specified what the alleged impact consisted of. He had also alluded to physical harm without specifying this or providing details, and had used generic phrases such as the “gravity of the facts” and “intensity of the ailments caused,” without explaining specifically what he was referring to. It added that the only victim is Julio Casa Nina, so that his wife and children do not form part of the dispute. 149. The State indicated that, to substantiate the non-pecuniary damage, the victim had presented a psychologist’s report that was based on an erroneous premise, by considering that he had suffered an arbitrary dismissal or was removed, which constituted the central issue to identify the alleged suffering, added to which the report included aspects relating to persons other than the victim. The State added that the content of the report suggested that the supposed problems were amply overcome because “currently, his family businesses are well on the right track and his work as a legal consultant is successful.” Consequently, it concluded that the alleged problems were not adequately substantiated. 150. With regard to the harm to the life project, the State indicated that the elements that the Court has used in its case law to determine this and to grant measures of reparation are not constituted in the case of Mr. Casa Nina. To the contrary, the arguments submitted lack substance to validly argue that the facts harmed his life project and, therefore, truly changed the course of his life. In any case, the victim had the opportunity to apply for a post in the Public Prosecution Service in order to have access to the career of prosecutor and did not do so, a situation that cannot be attributed to the State or considered to have an effect on the life project. 151. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this may include both the suffering and afflictions caused to the direct victim and his close family, and also the impairment of values of great significance to the individual, as well as changes of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims or their families.136 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 Almeida v. Argentina, supra, para. 80. 136 39