137. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his family, and also the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, as well as the alterations of a non-pecuniary character in the living conditions of victims or their families.148 138. The Court takes into consideration that, in this case, it has declared the violation of the right to personal liberty of Mr. Fernández Prieto and Mr. Tumbeiro owing to the illegality of the restriction of their personal liberty that also resulted in a violation of their right to privacy. Moreover, the State has acknowledged its responsibility for the ineffectiveness of the different remedies filed during the proceedings by Mr. Fernández Prieto and Mr. Tumbeiro. In addition, the representatives have argued that these violations had diverse impacts in the nonpecuniary sphere of the two victims, particularly as regards non-pecuniary harm. 139. As a result of these violations, the Court deems it pertinent to establish, in equity, financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage of US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) to Mr. Fernández Prieto and US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) to Mr. Tumbeiro, and this must be paid to their heirs pursuant to the applicable domestic law (infra para. 145). D. Costs and expenses 140. The Court notes that, in this case, the representatives submitted no specific petitions or arguments in this regard; therefore, the Court finds it unnecessary to rule on this point. E. Reimbursement of expenses to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court 141. In 2008, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States created the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Human Rights System, in order “to facilitate access to the inter-American human rights system by persons who currently lack the resources needed to bring their cases before the system.”149 142. In a note of the Court’s Secretariat of June 12, 2020, a report was sent to the State on the disbursements made in application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund in this case, which amounted to US$3,251.84 (three thousand two hundred and fifty-one United States dollars and eighty-four cents) and, as established in article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the Operation of the said fund, Argentina was granted a time frame for presenting any observations it deemed pertinent. The State presented a brief on June 24, 2020, in which it indicated that it had no observations to make. 143. In light of article 5 of the Rules for the Operation of the Fund and the violations declared in this judgment, and also that the requirements to access the fund were met, the Court orders the State to reimburse the said fund the sum of US$3,251.84 (three thousand two hundred Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 84, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 238. 148 AG/RES. 2426 (XXXVIII-O/08), Resolution adopted by the thirty-eighth OAS General Assembly during the fourth plenary session held on June 3, 2008, “Establishment of the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Human Rights System,” Operative paragraph 2.a), and CP/RES. 963 (1728/09), Resolution adopted on November 11, 2009, by the OAS Permanent Council, “Rules of Procedure for the Operation of the Legal Assistance Fund of the InterAmerican Human Rights System,” article 1(1). 149 42