34 Arguments of the representatives of the victim and his next of kin 63. The representatives of the victim and his next of kin requested, with respect to “moral damages”: a) that a symbolic amount be given to each of the member of the Molina Theissen family as “victims��� of the double infringement: because of the facts that occurred to Marco Antonio Molina Theissen and because of their own suffering; b) that the “moral damages” regarding Emma Guadalupe Molina Theissen be especially considered due to the grave facts that she was subjected to as a victim; c) that the Court order payment of an amount, in fairness, to enable continuation of psychological support and treatment for the mother, the sisters and the closest relatives of the victim; d) that it order the State to financially compensate, in fairness, damage to the Molina Theissen family’s life plan, for having deprived Marco Antonio Molina Theissen and his family of the opportunity to develop their “life plan,” denying them the possibility of attaining the personal, professional, and family goals that each of them had planned together with Marco Antonio; and e) that it is neither fair nor convenient for the victim’s next of kin to subject possible reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment to Guatemala’s Programa Nacional de Resarcimiento, which has a number of limitations. Pleadings of the State 64. The State referred to its acknowledgment of international responsibility, which entails the obligation to repair the consequences of the abridgment of the rights or liberties breached, and to pay fair compensation. On the other hand, with respect “to the measures of moral reparation,” Guatemala requested that their implementation be channeled through the Programa Nacional de Resarcimiento, in accordance with its domestic law, with support and participation by all the bodies of the State that must implement the respective measures. Considerations of the Court 65. Non-pecuniary damages can include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, and detriment to individuals’ very significant values, such as non-pecuniary alterations in the victim’s or his family’s conditions of existence. Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to nonpecuniary damages, it can only be compensated for in two ways, for purposes of comprehensive reparation to the victims. First, through payment of an amount of money or providing goods and services that can be appraised in monetary terms,