ii) Non-pecuniary damage 220. The Commission requested that Mr. Álvarez be compensated for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages caused by the violations established. 221. The representatives argued that Mr. Álvarez suffered moral damage as a result of being barred from leaving the country, and that the conviction interrupted his life project. They alleged that these two elements triggered the non-pecuniary damages suffered, such as psychological harm, fear, suffering, anxiety, humiliation, degradation, inferiority, insecurity, frustration and impotence, and also had an impact on his social and professional relations, altering the dynamics of his family. The representatives requested compensation based on the principle of equity. 222. Furthermore, they requested financial compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the violation of his human rights. They asked the Court to assess the damage taking into consideration the intentional nature of the damages, their effects over time, and the irreversibility and gravity of most of the damages. 223. The State rejected these arguments, arguing that they are not consistent with the jurisprudence established by the Court for such purposes. 224. In its jurisprudence the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include both the suffering and the afflictions caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the damage to values that are very important to the persons, as well as the alterations, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the conditions of existence of the victim or his next of kin.”191 Said damage must be proven in such cases. 225. Bearing in mind the argument of damage to the life project, the Court recalls that its jurisprudence has specified that damage to the life project is a notion that differs from loss of earnings and special damages.192 Damage to the life project considers the full self-realization of the person affected, taking into account his vocation, aptitudes, circumstances, potential and aspirations, that would reasonably allow him to have certain expectations of achieving these.193 Thus, the life project is expressed in the expectations of personal, professional and familiar development, possible under normal conditions.194 This Court has indicated that “damage to the life project” implies loss or severe diminution of prospects for personal development, in a manner that is irreparable or reparable only with great difficulty.195 Among other measures, the Court has also ordered compensation for this type of damage in specific cases.196 In the instant case, the claim of damage to Mr. Álvarez’s life project specifies an interruption of his professional development, but does not demonstrate that his life project was affected in a manner that is irreparable or reparable only with great difficulty. Therefore, the Court considers that there is not sufficient evidence to order such compensation in this case. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001, Series C, No. 77, para. 84; and Case of Zegarra Marín v Peru, para. 220. 192 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998, Series C, No. 42, para. 147; and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, paras. 60 and 80. 193 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, para. 147; Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012, Series C, No. 246, para. 285. 194 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C, No. 114, para. 245. 195 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, para. 150. 196 Cf. Case of Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009, Series C, No. 211, para. 293; and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 134. 191 42