this situation imposes the need to implement measures directed to reduce maternal mortality as a guarantee of non-repetition. 119. Therefore, the Court will order the State to design, within the period of one year, a campaign directed to publicize (i) the rights related to pregnancy, labor, and post-partum referred to in Article 2 of Law 25,929, known as “The Law for Humanized Birth”; (2) the situations that may be cases of “obstetric violence” in light of the contents of this judgment and Law 26,485 “The Law on the Comprehensive Protection to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate Violence against Women in the environments in which they develop their interpersonal relationships” and (3) the rights of pregnant women to receive humanized health care during pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum; to receive complete information in clear language on the state of their health; that their preferences, choices and needs be listened to, and that the pathologizing of pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum be avoided. This campaign is to be broadcast on radio and television and may also be reproduced in audio or video in all the maternity clinics in the country, compliance of which will be monitored by the Court in the city of Buenos Aires for a period of three years. E. Compensation E.1 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages 120. The Commission requested integral reparation for the human rights violations declared in the Merits Report, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, and that the State adopt measures of financial compensation and satisfaction in favor of the family members of the victim. It pointed out that at the moment of the death of their mother, Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro were children, which should be taken into account in determining the corresponding reparations. 121. The representative stated that the Court should set, with regard to the analysis of the case and to its consistent case law, the amount of financial compensation for the children of Ms. Brítez Arce. He indicated that Ezequiel Martín and Vanina Verónica jointly claimed, as compensation in a civil suit, the amount of USD 569,392.00 (five hundred sixty-nine thousand, three hundred ninety-two United States dollars). He also requested that the compensation that might be awarded include a modest and basic house since their lives of “lost chances” made it impossible, at their ages, to attain a life with dignity. 122. The State argued that the pleadings and motions brief does not contain specific claims in the area of compensation, which was the procedural moment to present them. It added that the representative has not adequately provided justification for the Court to set financial compensation for the victims in the case, which is relevant when assessing the proactive efforts that the State deployed in order to comply with the Commission’s recommendations and that exceed the financial reparation. In addition, it underscored that the representative did not provide any evidence that could accredit the material items to repair, in particular regarding the “lost opportunities in their lives” alluded to in his brief, or with respect to the amounts that might be pertinent. The State, therefore, requested that, should the Court consider it pertinent to fix an eventual financial reparation, it do so under the principle of equity. 123. As to non-pecuniary damages, the State recalled that the reparations due to the victims do not necessarily have to be pecuniary since the judgment, per se, is a form of reparation. The State considers that its express acceptance of the terms of the Merits Report and its efforts to comply in good faith with the recommendations are also reparatory with regard to the victims and that such circumstances should be taken into account when an eventual reparation is fixed for non-pecuniary damages, which also should be determined in accordance with the principle of equity. 32