6 26. Even though, in the instant case, for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 24, the Court is not attempting to compensate the deprivation of life, but only the suffering resulting from the violations submitted to the Court’s consideration, I believe it is necessary to clarify the applicable reparation criteria, as a general point of reference. 27. All human beings are equal before the law and before justice. Their property merits identical protection. The harm to the latter must be evaluated equally in all cases. However, the court can take into account the circumstances of the beneficiaries of a possible compensation when deciding its characteristics in each case. This case-by-case consideration of non-pecuniary damage (the consideration of pecuniary damage may lead to different conclusions), does not mean that a different value is assigned to the suffering caused by the violation, but that the Court considers the best way to make reparation, so that, on the one hand, it provides the most benefit to the beneficiary of the compensation and, on the other hand, it results in maximum compliance by the obliged party on which the compensation depends. 28. I believe that these consideration justify the fact that the Inter-American Court has decided compensation of twenty thousand dollars for each of the surviving victims of the massacre, an amount that may be less than that assigned in other cases for non-pecuniary damage arising from the same source. The appreciation of human suffering is no less in this case, owing to the number of victims or the characteristics of the events. To meet the goal mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Court considered it was also pertinent to grant other measures in favor of these victims, which are added to the financial compensation and, with it, constitute a single compensation. 29. Once again, in this part of the judgment on reparations, the Court considered the collective nature of the life of the beneficiaries of the compensation. Hence, it considered and agreed that, from a practical point of view, certain services to improve the victims’ situation should be provided, in addition to the delivery of specific sums of money. As the sentence explains: “Given that the victims in this case are members of the Mayan people, this Court considers that an important component of the individual reparation is the reparation that the Court will now grant to the members of the community as a whole" (para. 86). 30. Some of the measures with “public repercussion” (para. 93) respond to this concern of the Court, which attempts to expand the real benefit and scope of the compensation. They include those relating to the housing program and the development program (health, education, production and infrastructure) referred to in the judgment (paras. 105 and ff.). Thus, the Court continues to construct its case law on reparations, which is one of the most interesting and detailed aspects of the jurisdictional work of the Court, along the lines initiated in the Aloeboetoe and the Mayagna Community cases, which has been developed more fully in the Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, in the judgment on reparations of November 19, 2004.