observes that the representatives have not submitted any evidence to prove that the treatment was provided, or the amount that would have been paid for this treatment. Despite this, the case file and the Mr. Fornerón’s statement before the Court reveal that, at certain times, he received psychological treatment.124 Consequently, the Court decides to establish, in equity, the sum of US$5,000 (five thousand dollars). In addition, regarding the expenses related to the judicial measures and the steps taken to recover his daughter, these will be analyzed in the section of this Judgment on costs and expenses (infra para. 204). 193. Lastly, regarding the representatives’ request for various amounts for future expenditure on, inter alia, housing, food and health care, in favor of Mr. Fornerón’s daughter (supra para. 189(b)), the Court considers that these are normal expenses that correspond to the relationship between father and daughter and are unrelated to the violations declared in this Judgment. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to order payments for pecuniary damage in this regard. 2. Non-pecuniary damage 194. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and the assumptions under which it must be compensated. In this regard, it has established that non-pecuniary damage includes the suffering and anguish caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, the harm to values of great significance to the individual, as well as the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their family.125 195. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay the sum of US$1,250,000.00 (one million, two hundred fifty thousand dollars) for non-pecuniary damage to Mr. Fornerón and his daughter. They indicated that Mr. Fornerón had suffered due to the “appropriation” of his daughter, because her return was denied, and he had been deprived of the enjoyment of watching her grow and of participating daily in her life. In addition, he suffered owing to the State’s refusal to implement measures of reparation, delaying and denying justice, which caused great uncertainty, helplessness and anguish, preventing him from carrying on with his life in a normal manner. The separation from his daughter resulted in an unjust and arbitrary change in his life, violating the laws in force, and the trust he could place in the public bodies designed to protect him and to provide him with certainty in the exercise of his rights and the satisfaction of his legitimate interests. His representatives stated that Mr. Fornerón was unable to form another relationship, has not had other children, has not had stable employment, could not choose where to live, or what employment to take up, or undertake training, and his dreams were put on hold, because he has been obliged to live the last 10 years awaiting judicial decisions, which were always adverse, and exercising his paternity from the only place the State has permitted. In addition, in their reports, judgments, decisions, acts and omissions, the public officials have discriminated against him continuously. Based on the foregoing, they requested the sum of US$500,000.00 (five hundred thousand dollars) for non-pecuniary damage. Regarding M, the representatives requested the sum of US$750,000.00 (seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars) for non-pecuniary damage, owing, inter alia, to the “suffering because she had been appropriated from the time of her birth and been disposed of without respecting her rights, and because the Argentine justice system denied her right to identity, her origin, 124 Statement by Mr. Fornerón during the public hearing and report of the Judiciary’s inter-disciplinary team of June 1, 2009, supra note 46, folio 4079. 125 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 González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 315. 51