105 State indicated that it was not possible to differentiate between the aftereffects of the facts that occurred in Peru from supposed aftereffects of the medical procedure of tubal ligation. Thus, it argued that the I.V.’s psychological disorders that triggered a sensation of persecution related to various factors prior to the sterilization, so that it was impossible to isolate these from the facts of this case to explain her psychological reactions. The State also argued that there were factors unrelated to the sterilization that influenced I.V.’s separation and the break-up of her family. Consequently, the State asked the Court to reject the harm alleged by I.V. 354. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the circumstances in which it should be compensated. The Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes “the loss of, or detriment to, the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.”411 355. The Court has also developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage in its case law and has established that this “may include both the suffering and anguish caused by the violation, and the impairment of values that have great significance for the individual, and any alteration of a nonpecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims.”412 Since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, it can only be compensated, for the purposes of full reparation to the victim, by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods and services with a monetary value, which the Court determines by the reasonable application of sound judicial criteria and based on the equity principle.413 356. In Chapters VIII-1, VIII-2 and VIII-3, the Court has established the international responsibility of the State for the non-consensual sterilization to which I.V. was subjected, which annulled her autonomy and possibility of taking decision that accorded with her life project, causing her severe physical and psychological suffering. The Court has also determined that the facts constituted a case of denial of justice. 357. The Court takes note that the specific harm indicated by the representative referred to the loss of earnings, the expenditure for medical and psychological treatments to date, and the expenses associated with processing the domestic proceedings and the procedure before the Inter-American Commission. The Court notes that the representative did not submit any evidence about I.V.’s salary before the surgical procedure or her wages following this event, and did not provide specific information about the time she was unemployed. Regarding the other expenses, it should be noted that the representative advised that the victim destroyed various documents during an emotional crisis. 358. The Court does not have sufficient probative elements to determine the precise pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused in this case. However, based on the criteria established in its consistent case law, the circumstances of the case, the nature and severity of the violations committed, as well as the suffering caused to the victim’s physical, moral and mental well-being, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) which must be paid within the time frame established by the Court. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador, supra, para. 251. 411 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 Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 241. 412 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 53, and Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala, supra, para. 308. 413