41 closest members of the family, especially those who were in close emotional contact with the victim; b) Walter David Bulacio’s family “broke down” after the facts, family structure was lost and there have been physical consequences, such as the various illnesses suffered by members of the family; c) the victim’s sister, Lorena Beatriz Bulacio, has suffered health problems, has attempted to commit suicide several times, and has been incapable “of establishing [an] emotional attachment outside the family;” d) the grandmother on the victim’s father’s side deeply suffered Walter David Bulacio’s death because she had a very close relationship with him; and e) the situation of the next of kin has worsened due to lack of “an effective response on the part of the system of justice,” because in this situation “the pain and grieving become an unending process that does not cease to affect their lives.” The members of the Bulacio family “have suffered tremendous anguish due to the unending judicial process and [to] the impunity prevailing in this case.” 93. Therefore, the Commission stated that it deemed fair for the Court to set the overall amount of US$200,000.00 (two hundred thousand United States dollars) as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused to the victim and his immediate next of kin: his parents, his sister and his grandmother on the father’s side. Arguments of the State 94. The State made the following arguments: a) the amount estimated by the Commission for this item constitutes 66.25% of the amount claimed for pecuniary damage, a percentage that is high if one takes into account that in Argentina the ratio of these two amounts varies between 20% and 40%; b) the amounts claimed for non-pecuniary damage exceed those usually set by the Inter-American Court for this item, something that should be taken into account in the instant case; c) both the content of the agreement reached for a friendly settlement, and the acknowledgments made therein, constitute in themselves “a satisfactory reparation;” and d) the expert opinion of expert witness Graciela Marisa Guilis before the Court does not provide sufficient grounds to establish the impact of the facts on the next of kin of the victim, and her conclusions are not derived from the use of complex mechanisms for diagnosis, but rather from “recent knowledge” regarding the family of Walter David Bulacio.