Victim and his next of kin Non-pecuniary damage Violation of the right to life US$100,000.00 José Carlos Trujillo Oroza Not quantified Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero Walter Solón Romero Gonzales Pablo Erick Solón Romero Oroza Walter Solón Romero Oroza US$100,000.00 TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT US$250,000.00 US$100,000.00 US$ 350,000.00 US$50,000.00 US$50,000.00 US$50,000.00 The Commission’s arguments 80. The Commission expressed its agreement with the criteria used by the representatives of the victim and his next of kin to establish compensation for nonpecuniary damage. The State’s arguments 81. The State declared: a) that it had sent an official note to the victim’s mother acknowledging the facts and apologizing for what had happened. This document shows that the State has given full moral satisfaction to the victim’s next of kin; b) that the use of the case for political ends, outside the sphere of the proceeding, invalidates the claims for non-pecuniary damage in the application; and c) that it offers to pay the total amount of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) as sole and comprehensive compensation “under all the headings requested by CEJIL and by the Commission.” This compensation is fair, according to Bolivia, because the victim’s next of kin “have declared that they do not want money, but rather the punishment of those responsible”, “and because of the constant changes in procedural position” of the said next of kin. Considerations of the Court 82. The Court considers that jurisprudence can serve as guidance to establish principles in this matter, although it cannot be invoked as a precise norm to follow because each case must be examined in the light of its particularities45. It should also be added that, in the instant case, the State has acknowledged the facts and assumed its responsibility. 45 cf. The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, para. 104; Blake case. Reparations (Article 63(1), American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, para. 54; and Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 29, para. 83.