3 The relevance of resorting to categories such as these is particularly evident in complex cases – those that involve the violation of various rights of many persons. In such an event, it is necessary to fine-tune the assessment of damage, in particular non-pecuniary damage, in order to be certain that compensations rigorously adapted to the particularities of each individual situation are ordered in favor of each victim. In the Street Children case, the Court performed the operation of assessing the nonpecuniary damage, en bloc, as it were. It dedicated one of its considering paragraphs to asserting the various types of non-pecuniary damage alleged by the victims’ representatives and the Commission (physical and mental suffering, loss of life as an autonomous value, destruction of the life plan, failure to protect minors...). Abstaining from pronouncing itself on each of these “aspects” of the damage in question, the Court proceeded to indicate that it would bear them in mind, “insofar as they are pertinent and respond to the particularities of each individual case”, in order to establish the amount of the respective compensatory payments. Finally, it determined the value of the latter, assessing them in amounts that are generally higher than those of the penalties imposed on States for reparation of non-pecuniary damage in cases previously decided by the Court. I also agree, en bloc, with the results of the Court’s assessment, although, as explained above, I would have preferred that the different categories of violations and impairments of a non-material nature that the facts of the case caused the victims had been dealt with and calculated separately. Carlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary