compensation for this concept. Half this amount must be delivered to Santa Fe Gaitán Calderón, and the other half to Porfirio Osorio Rivera. 2. Non-pecuniary damage 284. The representatives asked the Court to establish that the State must pay Jeremías Osorio Rivera for non-pecuniary damage the sum of US$100,000.00, to be distributed among his heirs. In addition, it asked the Court to establish that the State was obliged to pay US$50,000.00 to the permanent companion and children of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, US$20,000.00 to the victim’s mother and siblings, and US$30,000.00 to Porfirio Osorio Rivera, who has been the main promoter in the search for justice for the disappearance of his brother. 285. The State affirmed that none of the rights recognized in the American Convention had been violated and indicated its profound disagreement with the large sums requested by the representatives arguing that, “[t]his type of claim seeks to convert the […] Court into a financial entity, which is not in keeping with the object and purpose of its functions.” In its final written arguments, the State reiterated that “since the State is not internationally responsible for the alleged disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, it is not required to provide reparation for the presumed harm caused.” 286. International case law has established repeatedly that the judgment may constitute per se a form of reparation. 400 Nevertheless, in its case law, the Court has developed the concept of nonpecuniary damage and has established that this “may include the suffering and afflictions caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the impairment of values that are of great significance to the individual, and also the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.” 401 287. Bearing in mind the circumstances of this case, the violations committed, the different degrees of suffering caused and experienced, the time that has elapsed, the denial of justice, and also the changes in the living conditions of some family members, the proven violations of the personal integrity of the victim’s family, and the other consequences of a non-pecuniary nature they suffered, the Court will now establish, in equity, the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of the victims. 288. First, the Court considers that the circumstances that surrounded the detention and subsequent disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera were such that they caused profound fear and suffering. In previous cases, 402 the Inter-American Court has found that similar circumstances had caused the victim serious non-pecuniary harm that had to be assessed in its full dimension when establishing compensation for this concept. In light of these criteria, the Court considers that Jeremías Osorio Rivera should be compensated for non-pecuniary damage and orders, in equity, the payment of US$80,000.00 (eighty thousand United States dollars). Half this amount must be delivered to Santa Fe Gaitán Calderón, and the other half must be shared equally among the children of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, namely: Edith Laritza Osorio Gaytán, Neida Rocío Osorio Gaitán, Vannesa Judith Osorio Gaitán and Jersy Jeremías Osorio Gaitán. 400 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 72, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 250. 401 Case of the Street Children (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 251. 402 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 51, and Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 132. 94