206. In this section the Court will analyze the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages together. 207. The Commission requested that the Court order the State of Brazil to adopt measures of financial compensation and satisfaction for moral damage. 208. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to pay the alleged victims an amount for pecuniary damage, determined in equity by the Court. They pointed out that, during the nearly twenty years since the murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza, her next of kin had incurred various expenses related to travel to the city of João Pessoa to participate in meetings and public hearings before the Legislative Assembly, loss of work days, etc. In addition, they requested that, by virtue of the violations committed, the suffering caused, as well as the other non-pecuniary consequences suffered owing to the lack of justice and denial of the truth, the State pay the alleged victims an amount, to be determined in equity by the Court, for non-pecuniary damages. 209. The State argued that, since it has not committed any human rights violation related to the facts of this case, there is no reason for the Court to establish pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages. It further argued that the determination of such payment would be inappropriate since the representatives have not made use of domestic remedies to demand the reparation in question. It indicated that, in the event that the Court determines its international responsibility for violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention due to an alleged violation of the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish, the Court's judgment itself should be sufficient to repair the possible damage, so that the State should not be ordered to pay any compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It added that the possible non-pecuniary damage could not be examined superficially, based solely on the representatives’ allegations, but according to the evidence actually presented by them. 210. The Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage in its case law and has established that this supposes “the loss of, or detriment to, the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal link with the facts of the case.297 211. The Court has also developed in its case law the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include both the suffering and afflictions caused to the direct victim and his family by the violation and impairment of values of great significance for the individual, as well as any alteration of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their next of kin.298 Given that it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary equivalent to the non-pecuniary damage, this can only be compensated by payment of a sum of money determined by the Court in application of sound judicial criteria and in equity.299 212. The Court notes that the representatives have not requested specific amounts nor have they provided specific elements to assess the damage suffered. Nevertheless, this Court understands that, given the nature of the facts and violations determined in this judgment, the victims have suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that must be compensated. In Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 130. 298 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 Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 132. 299 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 53, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 191. 297 -56-