per se a form of reparation. 343 However, in its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “can include the suffering and distress caused to the direct victim and his family, the impairment of values that are of great significance to the individual, as well as the changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims or their family.” 344 316. The Commission asked the Court to establish, in equity, the amount of the compensation corresponding to the non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violations alleged in the application. 317. The representatives indicated that, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the violations to the personal integrity of Narciso González Medina, the Court should order the State to pay the sum of US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) as compensation in his favor for non-pecuniary damage. They also asked that the Court order the State to repair the damage suffered by Narciso González Medina’s family, owing to: (a) the anguish caused by his forced disappearance and the impunity, and (b) the re-victimization to which the family of Narciso González Medina were subjected owing to the accusations made by the State that the González Ramírez family was “deliberately” concealing information related to the hypothesis of Mr. González Medina’s suicide. Therefore, they asked that the Court establish, in equity: (a) the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for Ernesto, Rhina Yokasta, Jennie Rosanna and Amaury, all González Ramírez, and (b) the sum of US$60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars) for Luz Altagracia Ramírez, taking into account the additional element “of her active participation in all the measures to clarify the forced disappearance of her husband and the emotional burden she has had to bear as sole head of the household and source of the family’s subsistence.” 318. In its answering brief, the State asked the Court to reject the arguments of the representatives and, in particular, considered that “the appraisal of the possible nonpecuniary damage […] is exaggerated.” Accordingly, it asked the Court to determine this compensation “in accordance with the consistent criteria developed in its case law in this type of case.” 319. Considering the circumstances of the case sub judice, the sufferings that the violations committed caused to the victims, as well as the changes in their living conditions, and the other consequences of a non-pecuniary nature that they suffered, the Court finds it pertinent to establish an amount, in equity, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 320. Based on the compensation ordered by the Court in other cases of forced disappearance of persons, and considering the circumstances of the instant case, the significance, nature and seriousness of the violations committed, the sufferings caused to the victim, the time that has elapsed since the onset of the disappearance, and the denial of justice, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$80,000.00 (eighty thousand United States dollars) in favor of Narciso González Medina, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Also, for the same concept, the Court establishes, in equity, compensation of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for Luz Altagracia Ramírez, as well as compensation of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars), for each of Mr. González Medina’s children; namely, Ernesto, Rhina Yokasta, Jennie Rossana 343 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 227. 344 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra note 309, para. 84, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra note 70, para. 120. 94