91 sub judice, if she so wishes. The State must ensure that the professionals of the specialized health care institutions assigned to treat victims make a proper assessment of the victim’s psychological and physical conditions and have sufficient training and experience to treat both her physical health problems and also the psychological traumas resulting from the lack of State response, the impunity, and the treatment received during the investigation (supra para. 239). The care must be provided for as long as necessary and include the provision of any medicines eventually required free of charge. F. Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage F.1) Introduction 281. The Court takes into consideration that, in general, the Commission recommended that the State “provide adequate redress for the human rights violations declared in [its Merits] report from both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary perspective” without providing specific arguments. The representative requested compensation based on the arguments described below. The State rejected these requests with arguments that are also described below. In this case, the Court finds it pertinent to refer jointly to the determination of the compensation for pecuniary and the non-pecuniary damage. F.2) Arguments of the parties 282. The representative indicated that the death of María Isabel Veliz Franco “led to unexpected expenditures; first, the need to give her a decent burial. The corresponding funeral expenses were paid entirely by her family.” However, it indicated that Rosa Elvira Franco “does not have all the receipts for the expenses which were incurred more than 10 years ago” and, consequently, asked the Court to “determine the amount for this item based on equity criteria.” 283. It also stated that, “from the moment of María Isabel’s death […], and throughout the more than 10 years that have passed since then, her mother has taken numerous steps to obtain justice and to establish the truth about what happened, and she has dedicated many hours to this.” In this regard, it indicated that, during the time she invested in such steps, “Mrs. […] Franco [Sandoval] has not kept the receipts for the” expenses and, therefore, asked that the Court “determine, based on the equity principle, the amount that should be delivered to Mrs. […] Franco [Sandoval].” 284. The representative also indicated that “the profound pain and anguish that Rosa Elvira Franco felt and continues to feel as a result [of the events], has led to serious health problems such as depression, hypertension, hyperthyroidism, and a hernia.” Consequently, it asked that the Court “determine, based on the equity principle, the amount that the State should award Mrs. […] Franco [Sandoval] in this regard.” 285. With regard to loss of earnings, it indicated that María Isabel Veliz Franco was 15 years old when she was murdered and that, in “2001, life expectancy for women in Guatemala was 72 years, so that she could have lived a further 57 years approximately.” It also indicated that she “had expressed her wish to pursue higher education studies” and that, since “there is no possibility of calculating the salary that she would have earned […] on completing her studies,” it asked that, based on the precedents “established in the judgment in [the case of] González et al. v. Mexico [… the Court] establish, in equity, the sum of US$145,000.00” (one hundred and forty-five thousand United States dollars). 286. The representative also referred to the non-pecuniary harm. For non-pecuniary damages to the detriment of María Isabel Veliz Franco, she asked that the State pay the sum of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars). This was for “the failure to ensure the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty, […] as well as the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to provide her with special protection owing to the fact