264. Similarly, the State must present annual reports within a period of one year on the actions taken to implement said policy. C.4.2. General obligation to respect and guarantee rights 265. From the body of evidence it is clear that on several occasions, between 2005 and 2014, B.A., E.A. and C.A. repeatedly reported that they had suffered surveillance, intimidation and harassment, one or two months prior to the death of A.A., after his death, and even on recent occasions. 373 However, there is no record showing that those alleged acts were denounced or reported to a state authority. This Court notes that the victims in this case requested that their identities be kept confidential for “fear of suffering attacks on their lives and physical integrity.” Accordingly, the Court recalls that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of States Party to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. This obligation applies not only in relation to the power of the State but also in relation to the actions of private third parties. Consequently, the State is required to guarantee the rights of individuals and, in particular, of the victims in this case, who report being subject to threats or harassment or who fear for their lives and personal integrity, through the existing domestic mechanisms. D) Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages 266. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that it contemplates “loss or detriment to the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the consequences of a monetary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.” 374 Similarly, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include both the suffering and distress caused to victims by the violation and impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as other suffering that cannot be assessed in financial terms.” 375 Given that it is not possible to assign a specific monetary value to nonpecuniary damage, for the purposes of providing comprehensive reparation to the victim, it can only be compensated through payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services that can be quantified in monetary terms, which the Court will determine by applying judicial discretion in a rational and equitable manner. 376 The Court also reiterates the compensatory nature of the indemnities; their nature and amount depend on the damage caused, and therefore they are not supposed to enrich or impoverish the victims or their heirs. 377 D.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 267. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to provide reparation for the human rights violations declared in the Merits Report, “both in the material and moral aspects.” The representatives requested that the State be ordered to pay compensation for pecuniary damages, specifically: a) the funeral expenses of A.A.; b) “[e]xpenses resulting from exile [,] including the transfer of the family members and their belongings and the expenses incurred during their stay (rents, schooling, legal expenses for 373 Cf. Statement rendered by B.A. before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on February 5, 2014; Written statement rendered by B.A. of December 12, 2010 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1351, 1352 and 1368); Statement rendered by B.A. (File of attachments to submission brief, disk 2, minute 1:05:17); Statement rendered by E.A. (File of attachments to submission brief, disk 1, minute 42:39), and Statement rendered by C.A. (File of attachments to submission brief, disk 2, minute 1:05:17). 374 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 441. 375 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 Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 441. 376 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 53, and Case Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 310. 377 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 79, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 295. 76