272. The State indicated that it did not owe any type of monetary reparation for nonpecuniary damage because it had conducted a serious and diligent investigation and had sanctioned the forensic physician whose negligence had led to a delay in the investigation. Also, even though several years had passed since the facts of the case, the family members had not requested any psychological assistance or indicated that there was an impediment to their emotional recovery and it was only now that they had asked for monetary reparation, without mentioning that they had received psychological treatment of any kind. Therefore, it asked the Court “not to allow this to become an action for unjust enrichment.” Lastly, it asked that, if the Court concluded that it should make reparation for non-pecuniary damage to the family, this amount be established in equity, without taking into account the exorbitant amounts requested. 273. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include both the suffering and anguish caused by the violation and the impairment of values that are very significant for the individual and any alternation, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of victims.”353 Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, it can only be compensated, for the purposes of providing full reparation to the victim, by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods and services having a monetary value, which the Court determines in reasonable applicable of sound judicial criteria and in terms of equity. 354 274. In Chapters VII.I, VII.II and VII.III, the Court established, on the one hand, in relation to Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, the international responsibility of the State for the failure to prevent acts that violated her rights to life and to personal integrity. On the other hand, it has been established that various deficiencies in the investigation of those acts affected access to justice, and the Court declared the violation of the rights to personal integrity and to respect for the honor and recognition of the dignity of the members of her family. In addition, it was verified that Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán had played an active role in the domestic investigation. Based on the foregoing, the Court establishes, in equity, for non-pecuniary damage, the sum of US$60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars) in favor of Claudina Velásquez Paiz; the sum of US$18,000.00 (eighteen thousand United States dollars) in favor of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán; the sum of US$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) in favor of Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal, and the sum of US$12,000.00 (twelve thousand United States dollars) in favor of Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz. The amount established in favor of Claudina Velásquez Paiz shall be divided equally between, and delivered to, Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal and Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz. D.2. Pecuniary damage 275. The representatives requested payment of US$692,424.44 for loss of earnings in favor of Claudina Velásquez and US$588,031.44 for loss of earnings in favor of Jorge Rolando Velásquez. In this regard, they indicated that, at the time of her death, Claudina Velásquez was in the fourth semester of her law studies in the Faculty of Legal and Social Sciences of the Universidad de San Carlos, “one of the most prestigious in Guatemala.” She was completely bilingual and had plans to specialize in criminal law in Spain. Added to this, they asked that her age and life expectancy be taken into account. In the case of the victim’s father, Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, they argued that he had had to abandon his professional activities with which he maintained his family to devote himself to expediting the judicial investigation into his daughter’s murder, despite the fact that this investigation should have been expedited, ex 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 López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 320. 354 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. para. 53, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 286. 353 89