297. The State indicated that “there is no evidence of the causal nexus between the expenditures incurred by Mr. Vélez and his family, argued as consequential damages, and the facts of the instant case,” which is “essential when ordering compensation for this concept.” Therefore, Colombia asked the Court to “abide by the expenses that have been authenticated with vouchers or invoices.” 298. Regarding consequential damage, the Court observes that the representative did not provide evidence that would allow it to verify either the expenses or the amounts indicated as corresponding to “consequential damage and damage to the family wealth”; furthermore, the body of evidence reveals that some of them were not assumed by the Vélez Román family. Nevertheless, the Court finds it reasonable that, in order to treat the psychological damage suffered as a result of the violations declared in this Judgment, the Vélez Román family had to incur expenses for the concept of psychological treatment, 269 and it is also reasonable that they incurred other expenses because, owing to the threats, they had to move house, and also incurred expenses owing to their move to the United States, which meant that they had to leave their belongings in Colombia. Consequently, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) for consequential damage, which must be paid to Mr. Vélez Restrepo within one year of notification of this Judgment. D.2) Non-pecuniary damage 299. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that it “may include both the suffering and difficulties caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the harm to values that are of great significance to the individual, and also the alterations, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims or their family.”270 300. The representative asked the Court to order that, as a measure of reparation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, the State pay the sums of: (i) US$140,000271 to Mr. Vélez Restrepo;272 (ii) US$100,000 to Mrs. Román Amariles;273 (iii) US$50,000 to Mateo Vélez Román,274 and (iv) US$40,000 to Juliana Vélez Román.275 269 The estimate presented by the representative indicated that the updated amount for the concept of individual psychological treatment for each member of the Vélez Restrepo family and for the couple amounted to $3,840,347.20 Colombian pesos. 270 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, para. 84, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 318. 271 In the pleadings and motions brief the representative asked the Court to order the payment of US$150,000 to Mr. Vélez Restrepo as a measure of reparation for the non-pecuniary damage. However, in his final written arguments he stated that “in light of the testimony given [by Mr. Vélez] during the public hearing […], the amount for the concept of non-pecuniary damage sh[ould] be reduced to US$140,000. 272 Regarding Mr. Vélez Restrepo, the representative argued that the moral and mental damage suffered result from: (i) the violation of his rights to physical integrity and life that caused him “intense physical, mental and moral suffering,“ the physical and psychological effects of which remain, 15 years after the events; (ii) the violation to his rights to freedom of thought and expression, and to dignity and honor, because the events “had an intimidating effect […] that had a negative impact on his professional work”; (iii) the forced separation he suffered from his immediate family from October 1997 to September 1998; (iv) the financial, family, and professional crises he has experienced in the United States; (v) the separation from his parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, and other relatives in Medellín; (vi) the death of his mother, without being able to see or be with her during her final days; (vii) the impunity in which the facts remain, and (viii) the irreparable damage to his life project, because the facts culminated with exile in the United States and this has prevented him from “following a professional and personal trajectory under normal conditions.” 273 Regarding Mrs. Román Amariles, the representative argued that the non-pecuniary damage suffered results from: (i) the threats and harassments of which she was a victim in Colombia as of September 1997; (ii) the 85