23. Given these circumstances, the Court should have awarded reparations as it has customarily done. The decision not to award compensatory indemnification for nonpecuniary damage to the family members held as victims in the judgment, with the argument that the direct victim was considered a terrorist or the perpetrator of unlawful acts that should be energetically decried, could prove discriminatory in view of the Court’s precedents in similar cases, when family members are exposed to reproach for acts they did not commit, and bearing in mind that the families of the direct victims are victims in their own right.45 Of course, it would be important to evaluate the amount to be awarded based on the standards developed by the Inter-American Court, and in view of the particular features of the case, but the Court should not fail to award compensatory damages when the violations and injury to family members have been proven and established. Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Registrar Cf. I/A Court HR. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 102; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 137, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 335. 45 7