216. Meanwhile, with regard to the losses presumably caused by the general injunction on property, the Court recalls that it has found that this injunction constituted a disproportionate restriction of Messrs. Mémoli’s right to property (supra para. 180 and 183); hence, the Court understands that this restriction could have caused pecuniary damage, or specifically a loss of opportunity for the victims of this case. However, in order to redress this loss of opportunity, it would be necessary to show and prove, in pecuniary terms, the opportunity lost, as well as its causal relationship to the violation declared, because it is not enough to affirm it in the abstract. In this regard, the Court considers that it has insufficient elements to find that the general injunction on property caused verifiable pecuniary damage to the victims in this case. 217. In addition, regarding the reimbursement of the sums paid by Messrs. Mémoli in the context of the criminal proceeding, the Court recalls that it has concluded that Messrs. Mémoli’s freedom of expression was not violated by the criminal convictions imposed on them. Therefore, it is not appropriate to order the reimbursement of the amounts paid by Messrs. Mémoli as a result of the said criminal convictions (supra para. 149). C.2) Non-pecuniary damage 218. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and the assumptions under which it should be compensated. In this regard, the Court has established that non-pecuniary damage may include both the suffering and difficulties caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, and also the impairment of values that are very significant for the individual, as well as the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their family. 345 219. The Commission asked the Court “to compensate Carlos and Pablo Carlos Mémoli for the […] non-pecuniary damage caused by the violations established [in this case].” The representatives indicated that, in the case of Pablo Mémoli, “[t]he court rulings convicting him […] called into question the truth of the information and the prestige of the journalist and his newspaper, which resulted in a serious threat to the stability of his employment and, thus, that of his family.” They also argued that, he also suffered harm as a lawyer, because “he was condemned by society and discredited when he lost the litigation,” and owing to the “permanent personal and family anguish.” Based on the foregoing, they requested the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) as non-pecuniary damage for Pablo Mémoli. Regarding Carlos Mémoli, they requested, “based on the same grounds as Pablo Mémoli, added to the disrepute arising from the general injunctions on property,” the sum of US$ 60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damage. 220. The State indicated that, “when determining the compensation for non-pecuniary damage,” the judgment may constitute per se a form of reparation. In addition, it referred to the case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico, in which the Court did not award compensation for non-pecuniary damage, but “indicated measures of reparation such as the publication of the Judgment and its dissemination by different media.” 221. Taking into account the violations declared in this case and the effects that these caused to the victims, the Court finds it pertinent to establish an amount, in equity, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In this regard, based on the violation of judicial guarantees and property of the victims, the Court considers it pertinent to establish, in equity, 345 Cf. 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 Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 212. 78