75
María Adela Iraheta
Julio Antonio Flores Iraheta
Felipe Flores Iraheta
María Estela Salinas de Figueroa
Amparo Salinas de Hernández
Josefa Salinas Iraheta
Hernández Sánchez Family
María Adela Hernández
Mother, deceased
Brother
Brother
Sister
Sister
Sister, deceased
Mother
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
5,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
US$ 5,000.00
José Juan de la Cruz Sánchez
Joel Alcides Hernández Sánchez
Valentina Hernández
Santiago Pérez
Juan Evangelista Hernández Pérez
José Cristino Hernández
Eligorio Hernández
Rosa Ofelia Hernández
Bonilla Osorio Family
Father, deceased
Brother
Maternal grandmother
Maternal grandfather
Maternal uncle
Maternal uncle
Maternal uncle
Maternal aunt
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
5,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
María de los Ángeles Osorio
José de la Paz Bonilla
José Arístides Bonilla Osorio
María Inés Bonilla de Galán
María Josefa Rosales
María Esperanza Alvarado
Luis Alberto Alvarado
Abarca Ayala Family
Mother
Father, deceased
Brother
Sister
Maternal grandmother
Aunt
Uncle
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
5,000.00
5,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
Petronila Abarca Alvarado
Daniel Ayala Abarca
José Humberto Abarca Ayala
Ester Abarca Ayala
Osmín Abarca Ayala
Paula Alvarado
Mother
Brother
Brother
Sister
Brother
Grandmother
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
5,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
2.
Non-pecuniary damage
256. The Commission asked the Court to adequately compensate the victims in this case and to
include both pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects. The representatives requested that the Court order
the State to pay compensation to the victims and their next of kin for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage caused, especially for damage of an irreversible nature. The State did not comment on said
request.
Considerations of the Court
257. International case law has repeatedly established that the judgment can constitute per se a
form of reparation.326 Nevertheless, in its case law the Court has developed the concept of nonpecuniary damage and has established that it “may include both the suffering and distress caused to
the direct victims and their next of kin, and the impairment of values that are highly significant to the
individual, as well as other changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims
or their next of kin.”327
258. The Court has established that the psychological, physical and moral integrity of the then
children who were victims of forced disappearance in this case were affected, resulting in feelings of
Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para.
35, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 448.
326
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 Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and
costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 156.
327