111 405. The reparations for human rights violations have been determined by this Tribunal based on the evidence furnished, its case-law and the arguments of the parties, according to the circumstances and characteristics of each case, in relation to the pecuniary damage361 and the non-pecuniary damage as well362. The non-pecuniary damage may be compensated by the payment of a sum of money determined by the Court, applying judicial discretion and the principle of equity363, as well as other forms of reparation, such as measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. In the cases in which the Tribunal has ordered the payment of pecuniary compensations, it has established that the State may comply with its obligations by the payment in dollars of the United States of America or in an amount equivalent to the national currency the State, at the rate of exchange in effect on the international market 364, considering the need to preserve the value of the compensatory amounts, in relation to the time that elapsed since the processing of the case at the national and international level, and the moment the payment so ordered is effectively done. 406. Once established the non-compliance by the State with the obligations to guarantee (Article 1(1)) the rights enshrined in Articles 5(1) and 13(1) of the Convention and in light of the criteria established by the constant practice of the Tribunal regarding the scope and nature of the obligation to repair365, the Court shall consider the claims made by the Commission and the representatives and the arguments of the State. * * * 407. The Inter-American Commission pointed out that the alleged victims made important economic efforts in order to obtain justice at the domestic level and overcome the physical, moral and professional consequences caused by the facts of the instant made. Moreover, it mentioned that “the victims have experienced psychological suffering, anguish uncertainty, and lifestyle alterations by reason of being unable to perform their profession on account of acts of persecution, harassment, and physical and moral attacks, and of the personal and 361 This Tribunal has established that pecuniary damages involve “the loss of or detriment to the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the sub judice case”. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 36, Para. 43. 362 The non-pecuniary damage may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as other sufferings that cannot be assessed in financial terms. Since it is not possible to assign the non-pecuniary damage a precise monetary equivalent, it may only be compensated by the payment of a sum of money or the assignment of goods or services, determined by the Court, applying judicial discretion and the principle of equity as well as the execution of acts or works of a public nature or repercussion, which have effects such as recovering the memory of the victims and commitment to the efforts to ensure that they do not happen again. 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. 363 Cf. Case of “the Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala; supra note 362, para. 84; and Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 130; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 242. 364 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. V. Surinam. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 89. 365 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 359, para. 25-27; Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala, supra note 36, para. 76 to 79.