66 152. The Court observes that, in the case file, there are no appropriate vouchers to determine the victim’s exact earnings for her professional activities at the time of her detention. In this regard, considering the professional activity that the victim carried out to earn her living and the particularities of the instant case, the Court establishes, in fairness, the sum of US$39,050.00 (thirty-nine thousand and fifty United States dollars) as compensation for loss of earnings in favor of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores; the amount requested by the victim, which was not contested by the State. b) Indirect damage 153. Bearing in mind the information it has received, the Court’s case law, and the facts of the case, the Court considers that the compensation for indirect damage should also include the victim’s monthly expenditure during her imprisonment for the acquisition of food and other personal expenses, and also the transport expenses incurred by the next of kin when visiting her in prison. In this regard, the Court considers it pertinent to establish, in fairness, the amount of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) as compensation for indirect damage in favor of Alcira Domitila Flores Rosas widow of De La Cruz. 154. The Court also considers that it has been proved that Alcira Isabel De La Cruz Flores had to assume the role of mother of the victim’s children together with her own mother, assume responsibility for the alleged victim’s defense, and give up her studies in Brazil. On this point, the Court considers it pertinent to establish, in fairness, the amount of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) as compensation for indirect damage in favor of Alcira Isabel De La Cruz Flores. C) NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE 155. The Court will now consider those harmful effects of the facts of the case that are not of a financial or patrimonial nature. Non-pecuniary damage can include the suffering and hardship caused to the direct victim and to his next of kin, the harm of objects of value that are very significant to the individual, and also changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or his family. Since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, it can only be compensated in two ways in order to make integral reparation to the victims. First, by the payment of a sum of money or the provision of goods or services with a monetary value, which the Court decides by the reasonable exercise of judicial discretion and in terms of fairness. Second, by the implementation of acts or projects that achieve public recognition or repercussion, such as broadcasting a message that officially condemns the human rights violations in question and making a commitment to efforts designed to ensure that they do not happen again; such acts have the effect of restoring the reputation of the victims, recognizing their dignity and consoling their next of kin.125 The first aspect of reparation for nonpecuniary damage will be considered in this section and the second in the following section. 125 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 242; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” , supra note 1, para. 295; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 204.