94 judicial discretion and based on equity.362 Furthermore, the Court reiterates the compensatory character of the payment of damages, the nature and amount of which depend on the harm caused, so that they may not signify either the enrichment or the impoverishment of the victims of their heirs.363 296. From the information provided on the funeral expenses, the Court takes note of the contradiction of the representative, and also of the State’s observations that, on the one hand, vouchers were provided for the funeral expenses incurred by the victim’s family and, on the other hand, the Court was asked to establish the respective amount based on the equity principle because there were no receipts. Moreover, the State presented a certification issued by the funeral home hired for María Isabel’s funeral, and questioned the vouchers presented by the representative because it considered that the amount had supposedly been altered. Despite this, the Court presumes, as it has in previous cases, 364 that the family incurred different expenses as a result of María Isabel’s death. Likewise, it takes into consideration the representative’s arguments on the expenses that Mrs. Franco incurred to obtain justice in order to establish the corresponding compensatory amount (supra para. 283). 297. However, the Court rejects the representative’s request with regard to the medical expenses incurred because the evidence that has been provided to the Court does not reveal a causal nexus between the specific ailments that Mrs. Franco has suffered from and the violations declared in this Judgment. Nevertheless, the Court places on record that reparation is ordered by the provision of the respective treatment with regard to the harm related to the declaration of the violation of Mrs. Franco Sandoval’s personal integrity, (supra para. 280) 298. Regarding María Isabel’s alleged loss of earnings, the Court notes that the representative asked that compensation for this concept be established based on the relevant provision in the judgment in the case of González et al. v. Mexico. In this regard, in that case, the Court concluded that “the offer made by the State to compensate the loss of earnings […] was satisfactory” and took it into account to establish the compensation in favor of the victims for this concept.365 In the instant case, the representative did not present any evidence related to the possible future earnings of the victim or even information on her wages in her temporary job, or about her life expectancy. 299. However, in the case of non-pecuniary damage, this Court has affirmed that nonpecuniary damage is evident, because it is inherent in human nature that any person who suffers a violation of his or her human rights experiences suffering.366 With regard to María Isabel Veliz Franco, in this case the Court has established the international responsibility of the State for the deficiencies in the prevention of the acts that violated the entitlements protected by the rights of the child to life and personal integrity. It has also been established that different shortcomings in the investigation of these acts affected her family’s access to justice and, in the case of her mother, also affected the latter’s personal integrity (supra paras. 225 and 242). In this regard, the non-pecuniary damage suffered by María Isabel’s grandparents will be taken into account to determine the corresponding compensation. 362 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 53, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 301. 363 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations and costs, supra, para. 79, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.), supra, para. 302. 364 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 207, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 50. 365 366 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 577. Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra, para. 176, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 344.