mother, before the events, “she worked selling food, and earned approximately the minimum wage at the time.” They added that “after the complaint had been filed, Mrs. Tanta Marín was unable to continue her activities because she was afraid and had received threats.” Therefore, the representatives asked that “pecuniary damage be calculated from March 2008 to the death of Doña Tanta on May 12, 2017,” and requested the sum of US$21,946. 259. The State argued that the representatives had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Azul Rojas Marín worked at the Casa Grande Health Center, but if she had worked there “there is nothing to suggest that the reason why her work relationship ended was what happened in February 2008.” The State also indicated that the threats referred to by the representatives had not been proved. Regarding the impossibility of Ms. Rojas Marín continuing her university studies, the State argued that the representatives “had been unable to prove that Azul Rojas Marín had studied law in Trujillo, and had not identified either the university or the level reached in her studies.” The State also argued that “the Inter-American Court should not take the calculation made by the [representatives] into account based on the foregoing grounds.” In the case of Azul Rojas Marín’s mother, the State indicated that “the said situation has not been proved, especially as the [representatives] have not attached any request for personal protection by her mother […] or any criminal complaint based on the presumed threats suffered.” 260. In light of the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it reasonable to order the State to pay compensation for pecuniary damage to both victims. Since the information provided by the representatives does not allow the Court to ascertain the amount of the pecuniary damage caused by the facts examined in this case, the Court establishes, in equity, the sums of US$10,000.00 ten thousand United States dollars) in favor of Azul Rojas Marín and US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) in favor of Juana Rosa Tanta Marín. The payment of the compensation to Azul Rojas Marín shall be made directly to her. The payment of the compensation to Juana Rosa Tanta Marín shall be made directly to her heirs, pursuant to applicable inheritance laws. E.2 Non-pecuniary damage 261. In its case law, the 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 family, and also the impairment of values of great significance to the individual, as well as the alterations of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.310 262. The Commission asked that the State provide “comprehensive reparation to Azul Rojas Marín and Juana Rosa Tanta Marín for the violations of their human rights that have been established, and this should include measures of compensation” to redress the “non-pecuniary damage.” 263. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to provide compensation “for non-pecuniary damage to Azul and her mother, Juana Rosa Tanta Marín,” owing to the “suffering endured by Azul as a result of the discrimination against her, her unlawful detention, rape and torture, the violation of her privacy, the stigma she underwent owing to her sexual orientation, the impunity of the violations, the destruction of her life project, the alienation from her family and friends.” They asked that “based on the standards of the inter-American 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 Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 238. 310 67