112 be taken into account75 (supra 34), and therefore, given the circumstances of this case, Alberta Velásquez must also be compensated for non pecuniary damages. 66. Taking into account the various aspects of the damages discussed, the estimates of the representatives of the victims and the agreement of the Commission with those estimates, insofar as applicable and in accordance with the specific characteristics of this case, the Court, in equity, sets the value of compensations for non pecuniary damages, to be made in favor of the victims or, when appropriate, to their next of kin (infra 67), as listed in the following table: Reparations for Non Pecuniary Damages Victim and next of kin Amount Efraín Bámaca Velásquez US$100,000.00 Jennifer Harbury US$ 80,000.00 José León Bámaca Hernández US$ 25,000.00 Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez US$ 20,000.00 Josefina Bámaca Velásquez US$ 20,000.00 Alberta Velásquez US$ 5,000.00 TOTAL US$250,000.00 67. As regards compensation for non pecuniary damages to Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, these will be distributed in the same way set forth in paragraph 53. C) OTHER FORMS OF REPARATION 68. In this section, the Court will decide on non-monetary measures of compensation for non pecuniary damage. Arguments of the representatives of the victims 69. 75 The representatives of the victims stated that the Court should decide that: a) the human rights violations committed by State authorities to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez did not allow Jennifer Harbury to develop her “life project”, making it impossible for her to attain personal, professional, and family goals with him, and this is an element that affects a person in her vital essence, and is therefore autonomous from the moral damages, the pecuniary damages, and the punishment of those responsible, and therefore should be economically determined by the Court, following the criterion of equity; and b) compensation for the violation of the right to life of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, because the latter has an autonomous value that transcends its potential to generate income, and when a person has been deprived of it, it cannot be compensated for by indemnification based on pecuniary or moral damages. This affects the family environment of the victim and transcends a materialistic quantification, for which reason it must be set in equity. See Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 109.