52 143. The victim’s parents and alleged son experienced the situation mentioned in the previous paragraph and the Court must presume the repercussions that the grave violations committed against González Rivera had on them. This presumption has not been disproved by the State and, therefore, it is in order to grant compensatory damages for non-pecuniary damage to the said next of kin. However, the identity of the son of William Otilio González Rivera has not been proved during this proceeding; consequently his existence must be authenticated before the State, so that the reparations ordered may be made effective (supra 134 and 135). 144. Regarding the victim’s siblings, as members of the family, it must be considered that they were not be indifferent to the suffering of William Otilio González Rivera, despite the objection posed by the State (supra 110). Therefore, based on the principle of fairness, the Court establishes a compensation for nonpecuniary damage of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for the González Rivera siblings. 145. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the total amount of US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) is fair reparation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the victim and his next of kin. This amount must be distributed as follows: US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) divided equally between the parents and alleged son of William Otilio González Rivera, taking into account the considerations in paragraphs 133 to 135; in other words, should it be impossible to determine the existence of and identify the said son within one year, the amount that corresponds to him will proportionately increase the compensation of the victim’s parents; and the amount of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars) to each of the siblings, Santos Hugo, José Alfredo, Julio Moises, Anatanahel and Leydi Rosibel, all González Rivera. * * * PABLO CORADO BARRIENTOS Pecuniary damage The arguments of the next of kin 146. Regarding “pecuniary damage”, the next of kin of Pablo Corado Barrientos endorsed the arguments of the Commission and then included two items in their communication of June 11, 1999: a) the victim’s loss of earnings as a vegetable seller in Guatemala City. Lacking evidence about the victim’s income, they stated that they endorsed the calculation of the amount made by the Commission; and b) with regard to other losses incurred by the next of kin, they indicated the financial support that his mother and his brother received from the victim and that, as a direct consequence of the facts, his mother had to work as a maid to provide the income that the victim had given them. They also indicated that what happened to Pablo Corado Barrientos led to his brother abandoning school and also to the abandonment of the project to build a house and expand the vegetable selling business. Owing to the foregoing, they considered that 50% should be added to the amount claimed by the