282. The State did not comment in this regard. 283. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the circumstances in which it must be compensated. This Court has established that pecuniary damage involves “loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the pecuniary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.”331 284. This Court considers that compensation for loss of income includes the income that the deceased victim would have received during his or her probable life. However, due to his or her death, the sum is delivered to the next of kin. Regarding the deceased victims, although the earnings that the victims failed to receive as a result of the violations declared in this Judgment has not been proved, some evidence 332 has been verified that allows the Court to infer that the deceased victims would have been able to carry out some remunerated activity or trade333 during their probable life. Therefore, the Court determines to award, in equity, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to each of the seven deceased victims for pecuniary damage (supra para. 97). 285. Regarding the surviving victims, this Court has indicated, in relation to pecuniary damage in the event of surviving injured victims, that the calculation of the compensation must take into account, among other factors, the time that they were unable to work.334 In this regard, the evidence provided does not indicate specifically the period during which the surviving victims were prevented from working owing to the facts of this case, Consequently, the Court establishes the sum of US$3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred United States dollars) for pecuniary damage for the 10 surviving victims, who were injured (supra para. 98), considering this appropriate in terms of equity. This amount must be delivered within one year of notification of this Judgment. 286. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and established that it can include the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, the harm to values that are highly significant to individuals, as well as the changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims or their family.335 287. Thus, the Court considers, as it has indicated in other cases,336 that the nonpecuniary damage inflicted upon the deceased and surviving victims is evident, because it is inherent in human nature that any person subjected to events such as those of the instant case, experiences profound suffering, anguish, terror, impotence, and insecurity, so that no evidence is required to prove this harm.337 Moreover, regarding the next of kin of such victims, the Court reiterates that the suffering caused to the victim “extends to the closest 331 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 307. 332 Fritz Alce worked on the land; Nadege Dorzema, Roselene Therméus and Ilfaudia Dorzema were domestic workers; Jacqueline Maxime worked as a mechanic; Pardis Fortilus was a student, and lastly, Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal worked as a bus fare collector (pleadings and motions brief, folios 267 and 268). 333 Cf. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra, para. 180. 334 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 28, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 205. 335 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 the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 307. 336 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, supra, para. 248, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 308. 337 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, supra, para. 248, and Case of Lysias Fleury v. Haiti, supra, para. 143. 73