facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus to the facts of the case.”254 In this regard, the Court observes that, in the absence of evidentiary support, it is unable to quantify the exact amounts that the victims expended due to the facts. Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that the victims have incurred diverse expenses for medical treatment and care as a result of their health situation, and therefore establishes, in equity, the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for each of the 49 direct victims indicated in Annex 2 to this judgement for pecuniary damage. C.2. Non-pecuniary or moral damage C.2.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 235. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to provide full redress to the surviving victims and the next of kin and loved ones of all the victims, including the pecuniary aspect. In addition, it asked the Court to take into account that: (i) the adverse effects on the victims included both their own life projects and those of their next of kin; (ii) the facts of this case have broken up families, left children without either father or mother, and cut short educational and professional projects, all as a result of the severe impact of the State’s acts and omissions, and (iii) most of the victims currently live in conditions of poverty or extreme poverty 236. The representatives asked the Court, based on the facts of this case, the violations committed, the adverse effects of the life projects, and the other consequences of a nonpecuniary nature suffered by the victims in this case, to order the State to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage, to be determined in equity. 237. The State indicated that, with regard to reparation for non-pecuniary damage, it would submit a proposal based on an actuarial study. However, this proposal was not submitted to the Court. C.2.1. Considerations of the Court 238. International case law has established that the judgment per se a form of reparation.255 However, this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this may include both the pain and suffering caused to the direct victims and their close family members, the impairment of values that are very significant for the individual, and also changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their next of kin.256 239. Accordingly, bearing in mind the circumstances of this case, the suffering that the violations committed caused to the victims, as well as the other consequences of a nonpecuniary nature that they experienced, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, for non-pecuniary damage, compensation equivalent to US$60,000 (sixty thousand United Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 487. 254 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 474. 255 Cf. 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 Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 482. 256 77