stated that she was not requesting any compensation for herself and, in that sense, she did not establish any amount for pecuniary or non-pecuniary reparation. On the other hand, the State rejected all the claims made regarding the satisfaction measures and stated that Brisa, her parents, and lawyers did not demonstrate the existence of any persecution against the potential beneficiaries of the measures for their participation in the case, and if so, they did not go to the competent authorities. They added that the proposed beneficiaries and even Brisa, have been carrying out their work at the Una Brisa de Esperanza Center. It indicated that since the alleged violations did not exist, it would not be their responsibility to make the requested publications or hold the press conference. It pointed out that through its departments the State already supports the National Day of Solidarity with Victims of Sexual Assaults and against Sexual Violence against Children and Adolescents. Finally, it pointed out that, for several years, it has been generating legislation, public policies, and institutional actions to fight sexual violence. 223. Regarding the guarantees of non-repetition requested, the State expressed its rejection of the requests made. It indicated that, progressively, it has been implementing public policies and legislative, institutional, and administrative measures to fight sexual violence and promote the rights of children, adolescents and women. Regarding legislative reforms, it pointed out that the state obligation to adopt its internal regulations must be framed in International Human Rights Law, not personal requirements. In this regard, it warned that it was not identified or proved that the current criminal legislation is contrary to the international treaties signed by Bolivia. Finally, it recalled that Bolivia has already modified its criminal legislation, while increasing the penalties for those crimes where the victims are children and adolescents. 224. The Court has ordered rehabilitation measures when it determines that the events analyzed have affected the personal integrity of the victims, as is the situation in this case (supra para. 171). Additionally, this Court has developed in its case law the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that this involves the loss or detriment of the victims' income, the expenses incurred as a result of the events and the pecuniary consequences that have a causal link with the facts of the case.332 The Court has also established in its case law that non-pecuniary damage “can include both the suffering and afflictions caused by the violation and the impairment of very significant values for people and any alteration, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the victim’s living conditions.”333 225. In this case, it is evident that Brisa has experienced profound suffering and anguish to the detriment of her mental and moral integrity due to the serious violations committed by the State (supra paras. 110 to 124 and 164 to 171). In particular, given the flagrant revictimization suffered during the domestic investigation and criminal process and caused by Bolivia during the public hearing before the Court, causing suffering in addition to the sexual and psychological violence of which she was a victim. Furthermore, the Court observes that the body of evidence in the file 334 allows us to verify that the suffering caused and experienced by the denial of justice, personal prejudices, the repeated use of gender stereotypes, and in general, the lack of a gender and childhood perspective during the investigation and criminal proceedings, caused a significant impact on Brisa's life. Namely, the victim indicated during the public hearing of the case that, [t]wenty years later, I still have night terrors, and post-traumatic stress syndrome, and it has more to do with what the prosecutors, coroners and judges did […]. It has been twenty years, and they still have not brought the perpetrator to justice, I am still waiting, there were three, and now I am waiting for the fourth trial, and I can tell you that not a single person in the judicial system treated me with care, with respect, 332 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 144. 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 Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 144. 333 Cf. Statement of Brisa De Angulo Losada during the public hearing, supra; Letter from Brisa De Angulo Losada of December 2011 (evidence file, folios 7243 to 7245); Statement of Luz Stella Losada during the public hearing, supra; Statement of José Miguel De Angulo, supra (evidence file, folios 11435 to 11439); Statement of María Leonor Oviedo Bellott, supra (evidence file, folios 11454 to 11457), and Expert opinion of Sylvia Mesa Peluffo given during the public hearing, supra. 334 68