85 96. Pursuant to the above, the representatives submitted a specific quantitative estimate of compensation for “moral prejudice ” with respect to each of the victims and their next of kin, an estimate that has been taken into account by the Court, as a reference point, as pointed out below. Arguments of the Commission 97. With respect to non-pecuniary damage, the Commission pointed out that a) in accordance with the criteria set forth by the Court in its case law, injury to the rights of the direct victims has gravely affected them emotionally and caused a psychological trauma to both the direct victims, if they survived, and the next of kin of all victims. Said injury must be indemnified by the State due to moral prejudice , and it is for the Court to set compensation based on its judicious estimate; b) the Court has recognized damage to the life project in the Loayza Tamayo case. Certain domestic legislation has resorted to that concept. The State must be ordered, in the instant case, to indemnify for the damage caused to the life project of the victims whose right to humane treatment was breached, insofar as the wounds suffered became obstacles that prevented them from attaining their vocation; and c) it has been proven that one of the sources of deep suffering of the next of kin of executed victims and disappeared persons in the instant case has been the circumstance that 13 years have gone by without the truth of the facts being known, due among other factors to secrecy of the preliminary investigative phase, which systematically hindered said next of kin’s access to the case files under domestic jurisdiction. This aspect of the damage must also be indemnified. Arguments of the State 98. For the reasons stated regarding application of the estoppel principle in the chapter on assessment and use of the evidence, the Court will not refer, in this section, to the arguments of the State regarding non-pecuniary damage. Considerations of the Court 99. Given the grave circumstances of the instant case, the intensity of suffering caused by the respective facts to the victims and also to their next of kin, disturbance of the conditions of existence of the victims and their next of kin, and other non-pecuniary consequences brought upon the latter, the Court deems that it must order payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, in fairness.190 The Court will do so, in the following paragraphs, based on the evidence gathered and specifically on the presumptions enunciated in the chapter on evidence, and taking into account the arguments of the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin and of the Commission. 190 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 83; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 60; and Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations, supra note 27, para. 57.