14. Nonpecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as other sufferings of a nonpecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their families.”29 Thus, it includes not only moral injury such as psychological trouble, but also physical problems and damage to the life plans of both the direct victims and their family members, given that the victim’s suffering extends to the closest members of the family, particularly those who were in close, affective contact with the victims.30 15. When the Court made its decision on the means and amount of compensation to indemnify family members of the victims in the case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru, regarding the events that took place in the “El Frontón” prison, it recognized that “there are numerous cases in which other international tribunals have decided that a condemnatory judgment constitutes per se adequate reparation for moral damages.”31 Nevertheless, in analyzing the peculiarities of that case and bearing in mind that a conviction alone “would not suffice, owing to the particular seriousness of the violation of the right to life and of the moral suffering inflicted on the victims and their families,” it found that they also deserved fair compensation. 32 16. The Court was clearly consistent thereafter, and even though it held that the delivery of a verdict was a form of redress on its own merits, it also recognized and held that human rights violations had been perpetrated by the State, and therefore it has habitually awarded compensation to direct victims and the members of their families 33 based on the circumstances of the individual case, the nature and seriousness of the violations committed, and the suffering of victims. 17. Even if nonpecuniary damage can be redressed with other measures of comprehensive reparation, as in the cases “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al. v. Chile) 34 and Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, 35 the decision not to award monetary reparation continues to be the exception. In only a very few cases, including this one, has the Court refrained from awarding compensatory indemnity for nonpecuniary damage. 36 The Court’s usual practice, particularly in cases against Peru, has been to award pecuniary damages even in cases of victims charged with crimes of terrorism.37 I/A Court HR. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, paras. 84 and 88, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 600. 29 I/A Court HR. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 55. 30 31 I/A Court HR. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 56. 32 I/A Court HR. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 56. Cf. I/A Court HR. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 9, 2005. Series C No. 131, para. 32. 33 Cf. I/A Court HR. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al. ) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 99. 34 Cf. I/A Court HR. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 156. 35 In addition to those cited here, see I/A Court HR. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v Peru, supra, paras. 223 and 225; Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 130; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 131. The representatives in the Barbadian death penalty cases expressly stated that they were not seeking pecuniary reparations. Cf. I/A Court HR. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, paras. 125 to 127, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 114. 36 Cf. I/A Court HR. Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115; Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. 37 5