forced disappearance in Guatemala. Consequently, the Court appreciates the State’s willingness “to continue promoting the approval” of the said bill and endorses this measure of reparation, in the terms established in the agreement reached between the parties. The Court urges Guatemala to continue adopting all the necessary legislative, administrative or other measures to ensure the creation of this Commission. D) Compensation 222. The representatives indicated that the State should make reparation, by providing financial compensation, for the harm caused to Edgar Fernando García and his family. They asked that this compensation include the loss of earnings of Edgar Fernando García, as well as consequential and non-pecuniary damage, and harm to the life project of María Emilia García, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom and Alejandra García Montenegro. 223. In the reparations agreement, the State, after “comparing the actuarial studies submitted by the two parties,” undertook to pay “financial reparation,” including “loss of earnings, consequential damages, non-pecuniary damage, and medical and psychological care,” to be “paid during 2012, with funds allocated to COPREDEH and to the National Compensation Program.” During the meeting in which the reparations agreement was presented to the Court, the representatives asked that amount of the compensation agreed on by the parties not be published in the Judgment and kept confidential because of safety concerns. In its final written observations, the Commission asked the Court to approve the representatives’ request. 224. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the circumstances under which it must be compensated. The Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes “the loss of or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.” 292 Furthermore, with regard to the concept of non-pecuniary damage, the Court has established that it “may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victim and to the next of kin and the impairment of values that are highly significant to the individual, as well as other changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his or her family.” 293 225. The Court finds that the undertaking made by the State in the reparations agreement to pay compensation to Edgar Fernando García, María Emilia García, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom and Alejandra García Montenegro for loss of earnings, consequential damage, non-pecuniary damage, and medical and psychological care, represents a positive step by Guatemala to comply with its international obligations and, therefore decides to endorse these measures of reparation, in the terms agreed by the parties. Consequently, as established in the reparations agreement, the State must pay the agreed amount “during 2012.” The Court also considers it prudent to grant the request of the representatives to keep the amount of compensation agreed by the parties confidential; hence, it will not include the amount in this Judgment. Accordingly, the parties must also respect the confidentiality of this information. 226. The Court also observes that, according to the agreement, a lump sum was established without determining a specific amount for each victim and its distribution. 292 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 43, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 382. 293 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 382. 73