60 establishing an amount to be paid in addition to the one agreed upon at the domestic level for non-pecuniary damage in favor of María Leticia Valle Jaramillo, Ligia Amparo Valle Jaramillo, Luzmila Valle Jaramillo, Blanca Inés Valle Jaramillo, Marina Valle Jaramillo, María Magdalena Valle Jaramillo, Romelia Valle Jaramillo, Octavio de Jesús Valle Jaramillo and Luis Fernando Montoya Valle. 209. Moreover, although the representatives requested an additional amount for Ligia Valle Jaramillo and Octavio Valle Jaramillo for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, because they had declared that they disagreed with the Settlement Agreement (infra paras. 214 and 222), the Court considers that it has not been proved before the Court that these two victims, who did not live with Jesús María Valle Jaramillo and who are parties to the Settlement Agreement, suffered pecuniary damage. Regarding non-pecuniary damage, the Court finds that the amounts ordered and approved at the domestic level in favor of Ligia Valle Jaramillo and Octavio Valle Jaramillo are reasonable and meet this Court’s standards. Consequently, the Court does not find it pertinent to establish an additional amount for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage for these two victims. 210. Lastly, considering that Francisco Darío Valle Jaramillo, who was declared a victim in this case and regarding whom the State acquiesced (supra paras. 38, 111, 115 and 169), did not receive any compensation152 under the Agreement signed between the Colombian State and ten siblings and one nephew of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo (supra para. 202), the Court establishes, in equity, in his favor, the sum of US$10,00000 (ten thousand United States dollars) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The State must make the payment of this amount directly to the beneficiary, within one year of notification of this judgment. 211. Based on the above, in the following paragraphs, the Court will refer to pertinent reparations of a pecuniary nature with regard to the others who have been declared victims in this case and who did not participate in the Settlement Agreement. B.1) Pecuniary damage 212. The Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the assumptions in which it must be compensated.153 213. The Commission asked the Court to “establish, in equity, the compensation corresponding to special damage and loss of earnings.” In this regard, the Commission “observe[d] that several members of the deceased victim’s family and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, surviving victim, have not benefited” from the settlement agreement reached in the domestic administrative jurisdiction, and that “the payments offered have not been made in full.” In addition, it considered that the Court “should rule on whether the amounts paid under the extrajudicial settlement […] should be deducted from those it orders in its judgment.” 152 Settlement Agreement of April 26, 2007, approved on September 28, 2007, supra note 146 (folios 2841 and 2842). 153 The Court has established that pecuniary damage entails “the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victim, and the expenses incurred by the next of kin due to the facts of the case.” Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 127, and Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, note 74.