92 that she was a child.” It indicated that this sum “should be delivered to the members of her family in accordance with the inheritance laws in force in Guatemala.” 287. Regarding the members of María Isabel Veliz Franco’s family, it indicated that, “in this case, the intense suffering is evident” because “they experienced profound anguish and pain owing to [the] disappearance, the abuse she suffered and the murder” of María Isabel. In addition, it indicated that María Isabel’s mother and brothers continue “suffering owing to the effects on their mental and moral integrity of the negligence of the public officials who took part in the investigations, and the accusations and insults they expressed against María Isabel, as well as the impunity in which the events of this case remain. It stated that “María Isabel’s murder had a profound impact on her mother’s life project because the burden of the search for justice and the advance of the investigations fell, above all, on her.” It also indicated that a psychological appraisal had been provided to prove the suffering of María Isabel’s grandparents, and of her brothers. Consequently, the representative asked that “based on the equity principle and pursuant to the case law” of the Court, a sum be established for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by the mother, brothers and grandparents of María Isabel Veliz Franco. It asked that the amounts awarded in favor of the grandparents “be delivered to their legitimate heirs in keeping with the laws of Guatemala.” 288. The State, for its part, referring to the funeral expenses, underlined that there was a contradiction in the representative’s request as regards “Mrs. […] Franco [Sandoval] does not have all the receipts” because, “among the documents attached to the [motions and arguments brief], the attachment identified as Annex 127 [sic] includes vouchers for the funeral expenses, which were verified by State agents.” In this regard, the State pointed out the difference between the “certification issued as a proof for the funeral service of María Isabel” and “the cash receipt” presented by the representative. The former indicates a total of “GTQ 2,500.00 (two thousand five hundred quetzals),” while the latter indicates that “GTQ 10,500.00 (ten thousand five hundred quetzals) were paid for sandwiches and the embalming of María Isabel Veliz Franco.” The State indicated that, on noting the inconsistency, it “approached the funeral home that had issued the said certification and the cash receipt that appears in the case file, to verify the authenticity of the said documents and the legitimacy of their content.” It found that “Rosa Elvira Franco had committed an offense under domestic law” because “the value of the cash receipt, according to the representatives of the funeral home […] is GTQ 1,050.00 (one thousand and fifty quetzals).” The State also asserted: Although the embalming and additional sandwiches were paid for, the cost of embalming a body today is GTQ 2,000.00 (two thousand quetzals), and the cost of this service has not decreased over recent years, but rather has increased, and that, in 2001, it cost GTQ 850.00 (eight hundred and fifty quetzals). Lastly, it indicated that “there is a note on the lower left hand corner of the cash receipt presented by the victim’s mother reading for the ‘Case of María Isabel Veliz Franco et al.’ [so that] it is clear that this text was added” and that this is an “example of the bad faith with which the victim’s mother and, if applicable, her representative, have acted in order to obtain financial benefits from the tragic death of the child.” 289. It also indicated, with regard to the alleged expenses in order to obtain justice, that it “had absolutely no confidence in the truth of what the representative has said; however, [it] recalls […] that none of the expenses incurred by Mrs. Franco to date were necessary in order to obtain justice.” 290. The State also indicated that “the petitioners and their […] representative [… have] ask[ed] for reimbursement of medical and psychological expenses, but in the section in which they claim the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred, there is no mention of any kind that they have received any type of psychological treatment.” 291. As regards the alleged loss of earnings, the State indicated that: