75 (b) The violations committed by the Dominican Republic subjected the children Dilcia and Violeta to grave and irreparable damage, which included negative psychological consequences; (c) The mothers of the children Dilcia and Violeta suffered harm when the State refused their children their rights to juridical personality, nationality and a name, because they feared their children could be expelled from the Dominican Republic. Moreover, they had to face the possibility that their daughters would never be acknowledged as persons and as Dominicans by the State, and (d) The fear and uncertainty caused by the State’s past and continuing violations has created feelings of anxiety and uncertainty for the children Dilcia and Violeta and their next of kin. Consequently, they requested the Court to order the State to pay, for non-pecuniary damage, US$8,000.00 (eight thousand United States dollars) to each child; US$4,000.00 (four thousand United States dollars) to their mothers, and US$2,000.00 (two thousand United States dollars) to Teresa Tucent Mena, Violeta’s sister. Arguments of the State 220. The State argued that: (a) No form of compensation was appropriate in this case because no causal relationship has been established between the effective damage to the alleged victims and the alleged acts and omissions of the State. To the contrary, it was the children’s mothers who did not take up and use the legal instruments made available to them by the State in order to comply with the obligation of all Dominicans to register their children, and (b) It would be a financial impossibility for the State to pay these expenses because, should they be awarded to the applicants, based on the principle of non-discrimination it would have to make financial reparation to all the other citizens who have carried out similar measures, and this would seriously undermine the Dominican Republic’s financial reserves. Considerations of the Court 221. This Court will not rule on pecuniary damage in favor of the victims or their next of kin, since neither the Commission nor the representatives requested compensation for this concept. 222. Non-pecuniary damage can include the suffering and hardship caused to the direct victims and to their next of kin, the harm of objects of value that are very significant to these people, and also changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims or their family.117 223. International case law has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation. However, owing to the circumstances of the 117 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 13, para. 158; Case of Yatama, supra note 13, para. 243, and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 13, para. 129.