3 the reparations for non-pecuniary damages, as in other cases, recognizing instead that it is actually an expense that results from the violation of rights, that is, a type of “consequential damage.” Given that most of these expenses were incurred by the parents, it is reasonable for this reparation to be given to them, and not individually to each member of the family. 5.It is important to highlight the decision of the Court that, in addition to considering the brothers Rafael and Emilio Gómez Paquiyauri as direct victims, it decided to include the members of their family (parents and siblings) as indirect victims (paragraphs 118 and 119), due to their subsequent suffering of detriment to their dignity and right to humane treatment. In this regard, they are justifiably entitled to reparations for non-pecuniary or moral damages. I agree with the statement of the Court, in paragraphs 218 and 219 of the judgment, regarding the need to admit, without requiring further demonstration, the suffering and distress caused by the death of a next of kin to the members of the family who had close emotional ties or physical contact with the deceased. All the more so in the case of the murder of a child. I also share the statement that, nevertheless, in this case it is difficult to establish or differentiate the degree of suffering or distress of each member of the household. Therefore, since throughout the proceeding under international venue it has been clear that the Gómez Paquiyauri family as a whole has suffered not only the death of their children Rafael and Emilia, but also the subsequent harassment and infringements, it seems reasonable that reparations for the moral damages to be given to the parents of the direct victims, for them to decide on the use or distribution of this amount in favor of the household as a whole. It is also fully justifiable to have included as victims, entitled to reparation for moral damages, the child Nora Emely Gómez Peralta, daughter of Rafael Gómez Paquiyauri, born after his demise, and her mother Jacinta Peralta. Both have undergone special suffering and distress due to the abrupt loss of Rafael during Jacinta’s pregnancy, depriving the girl of the presence of her father. 6.Since reparations must not be limited exclusively to aspects pertaining to property or compensation, it is crucial that the Court included public acts of satisfaction, redress, and amends to the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers and their family as part of the reparations. In this regard, we should mention the orders of the Court for a public act of acknowledgment of responsibility by the State in this case, publication of the pertinent parts of the judgment that demonstrate the truth of what happened, naming a secondary school in el Callao after the brothers Rafael and Emilio Gómez Paquiyauri, or granting a scholarship to the child Nora Emely. 7.I believe that the case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers is emblematic because it exemplifies the grave human rights violations that occurred in Peru as a consequence of a repressive policy against subversion that disregarded the fundamental rights and respect for the dignity of the person. The liability of the State is therefore clear and evident. Thus, in addition to reparations to the victims, the judgment is significant in its contribution to elucidation of the truth and carrying out acts and measures that enhance social awareness of the magnitude of the damage caused, as well as of the need to avoid recurrence of these situations. The State and Peruvian society must realize and understand that the cruel and absurd murder of a child and of an adolescent cannot remain in a situation of impunity, unpunished and without redress. But it is not merely a matter of approving or questioning the amount of the property-related reparation imposed by