202. In view of the circumstances of this case, the Court considers it reasonable to order the State to pay compensation for pecuniary damages to both victims. The Court notes that, pursuant to the brief of March 8, 2021, the representatives informed the Court that they “reject[ed]” the presentation of the expert opinion of Fernando Ruiz, which was related to (i) the economic damage caused as a result of the facts of May 25, 2000 and the alleged threats that continued over the last 20 years; (ii) the loss of future earnings of Jineth Bedoya as a result of the facts, and (iii) the impacts that have persisted over the years. 350 Taking into account that the information provided by the representatives does not allow for establishing with certainty the amount of the pecuniary damage caused by the facts examined in this case, this Court sets, in equity, for pecuniary damages, the amounts of US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Jineth Bedoya Lima and USD$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) in favor of Luz Nelly Lima. The amounts awarded must be paid fully, regardless of the compensation amounts that the victims may have received domestically in the past for any of the facts included in this judgment. f.2 Non-pecuniary damages 203. In general, the Commission asked that the State adequately provide both pecuniary and nonpecuniary reparations for the human rights violations declared to the detriment of the victims. 204. Regarding non-pecuniary damage, the representatives asked that the Court award an "adequate and significant amount based on the seriousness of the damage and based on the evidence set forth over the course of this proceeding." They argued that the Court should use the reparations granted to Jineth Bedoya through the Victims Law to calculate these reparations, as it has done in other cases. 205. The State indicated that the domestic legal system provides different routes through which victims can obtain reparations and specified that Ms. Bedoya was recognized and included in the Unified Victims Registry on May 9, 2013 for the victimizing acts of (i) threats, (ii) kidnapping, (iii) torture, and (iv) crimes against freedom and sexual integrity during the armed conflict. Through this process, Jineth Bedoya received, among other things, financial compensation equivalent to 40 current monthly minimum wages. It added that this sum was collected by the beneficiary on October 17, 2014. 206. The Court has established in its case law that non-pecuniary damages may include distress and suffering caused directly to the victims or their relatives, like tampering with individual core values, and changes of a non pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their families. 351 Furthermore, since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary value to non-pecuniary damage, for the purposes of making integral reparation to the victims, compensation may only be provided through the payment of a sum of money or through the delivery of goods and services that can be assessed monetarily, as prudently determined by the Court, applying judicial discretion and the principle of equity. 352 207. The Court’s judgment found demonstrated the profound suffering experienced by both Ms. Bedoya and her mother as a result of the facts analyzed in this case. Likewise, the expert opinion Cf. Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Call to hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 12, 2021, Operative Paragraph 2. 350 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, para. 84; and Case of Grijalva Good v. Ecuador, supra, para. 190. 351 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, para. 84; and Case of Grijalva Good v. Ecuador, supra, para. 191. 352 69