especially regarding enforcement of final judgments delivered in labor proceedings, through a subsequent, differentiated procedure aired before a specialized court—the Labor and Pension Collection Court. It added that the request for changes in laws and regulations to make the national treasury the ultimate guarantor for the enforcement of final judgments against any public institution would cause the Court to interfere in the political and administrative affairs of a sovereign State. 222. The Court notes that current legislation governing the execution of labor judgments is Law No. 20,022 of May 30, 2005, which calls for a subsequent, differentiated procedure aired before a specialized court called the Labor and Pension Collection Court empowered to act on its own motion. This legal structure makes it possible to correct some of the violations that this judgment has established regarding the right to judicial protection and the right to a speedy process. 223. The Court recognizes and values the progress that the State has already made to guarantee non-recurrence and, as it has done in other cases, urges it to continue implementing such measures. Therefore, regarding the requests to adopt measures of non-recurrence, the Court deems that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and appropriate to redress the violations suffered by the victims. F. Compensatory damages 224. Pecuniary damage was covered in the section on measures of restitution. As other compensatory measures, the Commission asked in general terms for full redress of the violations, including nonpecuniary damages. 225. The representatives asked, as nonpecuniary damages, for each of the victims to be compensated in the amount of USD 25,000.00 “for their great suffering and that of their families” caused by noncompliance with the judicial verdict. 226. The State, in turn, argued that the amount requested for nonpecuniary damages was unjustified. It held, in general terms regarding compensatory redress, that these damages could be considered “debilitating reparations,” defining this concept as “severe impairment of the State’s ability to satisfy human rights obligations.” It deemed that the amount requested by the representatives “is unprecedented and extremely high” and would total over USD 110 million, which alone, according to the State, would be equivalent to nearly a quarter of the country’s 2020 judicial budget. It added that the outlook was even more difficult in the setting of the pandemic. It therefore asked the Court to consider these factors when determining reparations that would not be debilitating, both because of the material consequences on government assets affected hereby, and because this case could have systemic consequences for other cases in the context of the “historical debt.” 227. The Court has developed the concept of nonpecuniary damage in its case law and has established that this can encompass pain and suffering caused to the direct victims and their loved ones, harm to values of great importance to the individuals, and changes of a nonpecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their relatives.455 In this specific case, several of the victims had described in their statements how the breach of their right to property had worsened the quality of their lives, among other things, making it difficult to purchase medications.456 455 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 Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 181. 456 For example, victim Ramona Ilufi Luna said, in testimony attached to the pleadings and motions brief, that, because the money owed to her has not been paid, her children need to pay for her medicines because her money 71