103 212. In this regard, notwithstanding the above statements (supra para. 211), there is no evidence that Law No. 28592, “creating the comprehensive reparations program – PIR,” of July 29, 2005, which was relied upon by the State, has been applied at all in the instant case. Furthermore, under Section 4 thereof, “victims who have been awarded reparations by virtue of other decisions or State policies […] shall not be deemed victims and, accordingly, shall not benefit from the programs addressed herein.” Therefore, this Court will not go into the analysis of the scope of said Law. B) PECUNIARY DAMAGE 213. According to the Court’s case law, pecuniary damage entails the loss or impairment of the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the monetary consequences thereof bearing a causal link to the facts of the instant case; for this purpose, if appropriate, the Court will set a damages amount intended to provide compensation for the monies and personal effects lost as a result of the violations declared to be such in the relevant Judgment.164 Based on what was said regarding the payment of certain amounts to the legal heirs of the ten victims that were executed or caused to disappear (supra paras. 207 to 210), in this separate heading the Court will merely set compensation for pecuniary damage on account of the monies and personal effects lost by the next of kin and bearing a causal link to the facts of the case, considering the circumstances of the case, the evidence offered, the case law of the Court and the parties’ arguments. 214. Moreover, at least four of the next of kin of the victims have seen their main regular activity as of the date of the facts interrupted, as they put all their efforts into their quest for justice for the case at hand, which caused them to incur expenses. Thus, Ms. Andrea Gisela Ortiz-Perea stated that she quit her university studies; Ms. Antonia Pérez-Velásquez stated that she quit her job as an elementary school teacher; Ms. Alejandrina Raida CóndorSaez stated that she quit working as a clothes launderer; and Ms. Dina Flormelania PabloMateo said she quit her job at the market. In view of said circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate to order that the State pay, in fairness, compensation in the amount of US $20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States Dollars) to each of Ms. Alejandrina Raida Cóndor-Saez and Ms. Dina Flormelania Pablo-Mateo, and US $25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States Dollars) to each of Ms. Andrea Gisela Ortiz-Perea and Ms. Antonia Pérez-Velásquez. 215. Also, the Court has taken due account of the fact that, in the instant case, some of the next of kin of the disappeared or executed persons have incurred expenses in their quest for justice. Such next of kin are as follows: Rosario Muñoz-Sánchez, Fedor MuñozSánchez, Hilario Jaime Amaro-Ancco, Magna Rosa Perea de Ortiz, Víctor Andrés OrtizTorres, José Ariol Teodoro-León, Bertila Bravo-Trujillo, and José Esteban Oyague-Velazco. Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to order that the State pay, in fairness, compensation in the amount of US $5,000.00 (five thousand United States Dollars) to each of the above-named persons. C) NON PECUNIARY DAMAGE 164 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 150; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 126, and. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 220.