96 the events denounced. In particular, they asked the Court to order the State to pay in equity, for moral damages, a total of USD 5,845,000.00 in favor of “87 victims,” and USD 3,360,000.00 in favor of the “families of the communities.” Regarding pecuniary damage, they requested that the Court order the State to pay, for loss of earnings, “patrimonial damage” and others, the amounts of USD 13,160,227.00 in favor of “87 victims”, and USD 2,138,664.00 in favor of the “families of the communities.” Those sums, which were presented in a table, were based on the Actuarial Report of Mr. Roberto A. Molina Cruz. 323. The State argued that, according to the information provided by the PNR, this program has made payments for economic reparations to “at least 59 victims out of the 84 included in the instant case.” In relation to the payment of financial reparations, it considered that “it is necessary to apply and respect the principle of equality before the law and provide the victims of human rights violations during the internal armed conflict with equal treatment, which will also help to improve the functioning of the National Reparations Program.” In addition, it indicated that “at no time does it refuse to pay the reparations that may correspond to the victims of human rights violations that occurred during the internal armed conflict; however, it is opposed to paying the amounts established in the table provided by the representatives, since the [PNR] contemplates the amounts to be paid to all those persons whose human rights were violated during the internal armed conflict, which are established in accordance with the State’s real possibilities of meeting its obligations under the Peace Accords.” Furthermore, it provided a list of 67 persons who have already been compensated through the PRN. 324. The Court has developed the concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the cases in which it must be compensated. Thus, it has established that pecuniary damage encompasses the loss of or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred owing to the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case. 370 On the other hand, non-pecuniary damage may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his family, the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, and the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family. 371 Likewise, the Court has held that non-pecuniary damage is self-evident, since it is part of human nature itself that any person who suffers a violation of their human rights experiences suffering. 372 325. In this regard, the Court observes, first, that the representatives submitted as evidence, a report on the “Actuarial valuation of damages” 373 prepared by Roberto A. Molina Cruz, which determined the amounts of compensation for loss of profits, “patrimonial” damages, and “other” material and moral damages in favor of 87 persons whom the representatives identified as victims of extrajudicial execution or forced disappearance, as well as in favor of 96 displaced family groups. 374In this regard, the Court notes that the report includes in its analysis material damages generated by events that are outside the jurisdiction of the Court, such as the loss of earnings of the persons executed, the destruction of homes, livestock, crops and other property (supra para. 24). (supra para. 24). Therefore, such items cannot be taken into account. As for the amounts for “moral damages” specified in said report, allegedly arising from the suffering caused to the victims by the forced disappearances and forced displacement proven in this case, the Court will assess them taking into account the criteria established in its case law for the determination of non-pecuniary damage. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 251. 371 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 Flor Freire v. Ecuador, para. 256. 372 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 176, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 149. 373 Actuarial valuation of damages (evidence file, folios 4305 to 4736). 374 The foregoing, with the exception that no loss of profit was calculated in favor of the missing persons. 370