221. The State indicated that the alleged expectation that they would end their lives as justices referred to “a certainty that was far from being a reasonable prospect for a person who exercises public office with political accountability.” In the case of Mr. Fernández Gadea, it argued that there was no causal nexus between the terminal disease that he died of and the impeachment proceedings against him. It added that the sum claimed as non-pecuniary damage “bore no relationship […] to the alleged violations and was the result of weighting factors […] that had not been proved.” It asked that, if the Court established reparations for this concept, it should take a decision based on the observations made and the relevant precedents. 222. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that it may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victims and their closest family and the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, as well as the changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of victims or their families.195 223. To prove the non-pecuniary damage caused to Mr. Ríos Ávalos, the representatives provided an expert appraisal prepared by a psychiatrist who had interviewed the victim, two of his children, and an individual who worked as his driver. In his report, the expert concluded that “when the facts [of the case] occurred,” the victim suffered “anxiety disorders characterized by agitation, nervousness, chest tightness, apparently unrelated to the heart, and difficulty in sleeping,” due to the “intense stress” to which he was subjected. 196 Also, in his statement during the public hearing, Mr. Ríos Ávalos referred to the consequences of the impeachment proceeding against him and his resulting removal from office.197 224. In the case of Mr. Fernández Gadea, in his testimonial statement, Jesús María Fernández Villalba referred to the anxiety and other problems suffered by his father as a result of the impeachment proceedings and his subsequent dismissal.198 Similarly, his widow, María Concepción Villalba spoke of the suffering endured by her husband following those events.199 For his part, witness Alexei Porres referred to the stress, anxiety, depression, and other circumstances affecting the victim, which he had diagnosed in his capacity as treating physician.200 225. The Court rejects the alleged impairment of honor and reputation as an element relating to the non-pecuniary damage caused to the victims, because this relates to arguments based on facts that exceed the purpose of these proceedings (supra para. 136). In addition, it will not take into account the references to the reprisals suffered or the separation of Mr. Ríos Ávalos from academic establishments because, similarly, they are unrelated to the facts of this case. 226. With regard to the serious disease suffered by Mr. Fernández Gadea that resulted in his death, the Court notes that, other than the stress, anxiety and anguish suffered by the victim, 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 Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 190. 196 Cf. Expert opinion signed by Carlos Alberto Arestivo (evidence file, volume VIII, affidavits, folios 13412 to 13425). 197 Cf. Statement provided by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos during the publics hearing before this Court. 198 Cf. Testimonial statement provided by Jesús María Fernández Villalba during the publics hearing before this Court. 199 Cf. Testimonial statement of María Concepción Villalba, widow of Fernández, provided by affidavit (evidence file, volume VIII, affidavits, folios 13498 to 13506). 200 Cf. Testimonial statement of Alexei Porres Piovet, provided by affidavit (evidence file, volume VIII, affidavits, folios 13427 to 13433). 195 52