42 as a result of the death of their family member.120 The Court observes that in the case of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní, the Mineworkers Union of Hierro Peru took charge “of many of the burial expenses.”121 The Court recalls that, when a violation of the American Convention occurs, the obligation to repair it arises and is the exclusive responsibility of the State. Consequently, taking into account the circumstances of this case and the Court’s previous rulings, the Court finds it pertinent to establish in equity the amount of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), as compensation for the funeral expenses for each of the deceased victims. In keeping with the representatives’ request, these amounts shall be delivered to the wife of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and to the mother of Consuelo García-Santa Cruz. The State must make these payments within one year of notification of this judgment. B.2) Non pecuniary damage 175. The Court must now determine the reparations for non pecuniary damage, as it has understood this in its case law. The Court recalls that non pecuniary damage can include the suffering and hardship caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the harm of objects of value that are very significant to the individual, and also changes, of a non pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or his family. Since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary equivalent for non pecuniary damage, it can only be compensated, in order to provide comprehensive reparation to the victims, by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services with a monetary value, which the Court determines by the reasonable exercise of judicial discretion and based on the principle of equity; and also by acts or projects with public recognition or repercussion, which have the effect of acknowledging the dignity of the victims, and avoiding the repetition of the human rights violations.122 176. Based on the criteria established in other cases,123 the Court considers that the non pecuniary damage inflicted on Mr. Cantoral-Huamaní and Ms. García-Santa Cruz is evident, because it is inherent in human nature that all those subjected to illegal and arbitrary detention, acts violating personal integrity and subsequent extrajudicial execution, such as described in this case, experience intense suffering, anguish, terror, and feelings of powerlessness and insecurity; hence, this damage does not require proof. 177. Considering the circumstances of the case and its decisions in similar cases, the Court considers it appropriate to establish in equity the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars), for each of the deceased victims as compensation for the non pecuniary damage that the human rights violations declared in this judgment caused to Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz. 178. With regard to specific next of kin of the deceased victims, it has been established that they have been victims of the violation of Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention in the terms of paragraphs 112 to 120 and 135 of this judgment. 179. In accordance with the Court’s finding in this case, the violation of the rights to life, personal liberty and personal integrity of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa 120 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 251; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 428; and Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 13, para. 177 121 Cf. sworn statement made by Vanessa Cantoral-Contreras (file of preliminary exception, merits, reparations and costs, page 389). 122 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 295. Cf. also Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 216; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 430; and Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 13, para. 149. 123 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 256; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 217; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 72, para. 157.