- 81 - b) Request for reactivation of the legal status of the UP and restitution of the parliamentary seat of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas in favor of the UP 239. The representatives explained that, owing to the “explicit political motivation for the extrajudicial execution of Senator Cepeda Vargas, and its consequences for the Patriotic Union […], the Court should order the Colombian State to restore the Senator’s parliamentary seat, which, in turn, requires reactivating Patriotic Union’s legal status.” Furthermore, the representatives affirmed that “to implement the measures of reparation, the State merely has to enact a law that includes the Patriotic Union among the political minorities, so that its seat in Congress is restituted, as a special electoral circumscription.” Lastly, they asked that both the restitution of the seat and the legal recognition of the UP as a minority political movement be announced during the act of public acknowledgement of responsibility by the State. 240. The State argued that the representatives had exceeded the nature and purpose of this litigation by over-interpreting current criteria on reparations, and that if this measure of reparation were granted, it would violate the right to elect and to be elected in equal conditions. Also, it considered “inconceivable that a specific collectivity accede to legal status and exercise public power, when this does not arise from the specific support of the electorate.” It also argued that there is no direct relationship between the death of Senator Cepeda and the political party’s loss of legal status and, consequently, that this reparation was inadmissible. Finally, the State affirmed that it is not true that Senator Cepeda had occupied the last seat of the UP in the Congress of the Republic, because a document of the Electoral Organization of the Republic of Colombia revealed that he was a Senator for the PCC rather than for the UP. 241. Based on the above considerations, the Court finds that, in this case, it is not in order to order the restitution of the parliamentary seat as requested. First, although the Court has ordered similar measures in the case of officials dismissed from their functions, there is a substantial difference in this case, because the person who occupied the post of Senator cannot be reinstated. Furthermore, the requested measure of reparation would benefit the UP party which, as has already been indicated, is neither a victim nor a beneficiary in this case, so that it is not in order to grant this request. For the same reason, it is not incumbent on the Court to rule on the restitution of this political party’s legal status. D. COMPENSATION 242. The Court has developed the concept of pecuniary329 and non-pecuniary damage330 and the assumptions under which they must be compensated. Consequently the Court will determine the pertinence of granting pecuniary and non-pecuniary 329 This Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes “the loss of or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the pecuniary consequences that bear a relationship to the facts of the case.” Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra note 56, para. 43; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 275, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 360. 330 This Court has established that non-pecuniary damage “may include the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, and other alternations, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or his family.” Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra note 320, para. 84; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 275, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 371.