84 94. The Court will now consider the injurious effects of the facts of the case which are not economic or patrimonial. Non-pecuniary damage may include suffering and affliction caused to the direct victims and their relatives, detriment to very significant values of persons, as well as non-pecuniary alterations in the conditions of existence of a victim or his or her family. Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, for purposes of comprehensive reparation to the victims, it can only be compensated for, and this in two ways. First, by means of payment of an amount of money or delivery of goods or services that can be estimated in monetary terms, which the Court will establish through reasonable application of judicial discretion and in terms of fairness. And secondly, by means of acts or works which are public in their scope or repercussion and that have effects such as remembrance of the victims, recognition of their dignity, consolation to their relatives, or transmittal of a message of official reproval of the human rights violations involved and of commitment to efforts seeking to avoid their repetition.189 The first aspect of reparation for non-pecuniary damage will be analyzed in this section, and the second aspect in the following one. Arguments of the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin 95. The representatives of the victims and of the next of kin argued, with respect to non-pecuniary damage, as follows: a) said damage has been sufficiently proven by the sworn testimony rendered by the next of kin of the victims; b) as the Court has stated in other cases, it is inherent to human nature for any person subject to aggression and abuse to experience moral suffering, and it must be considered that it causes moral suffering of the next of kin who are directly affected by the abuse suffered by the victim. Given these circumstances, they requested that the respective compensation be set in fairness and based on a judicious estimate of the moral prejudice ; c) reparation of the damage caused by the death and forced disappearance of the victims should not be limited to reimbursement of expenses incurred by the next of kin as a consequence of the facts that occurred, the income the victims would have generated, and the moral prejudice suffered by the next of kin due to their deaths. There is a value attributable to the life of each individual which transcends those items, and from which a different right than the rights of the next of kin derives, and its violation generates an independent obligation to make reparations. Protection of the right to life in the Convention requires that it be granted an autonomous value. Therefore, the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin request that the Court establish that value and the measures that in its opinion constitute equitable reparation for it in the instant case; and d) denial of justice as an autonomous violation of Articles 8 ad 25 of the Convention also generates a specific obligation of the State to make reparations. 189 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 77; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 56; and Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations, supra note 27, para. 53.