243. The Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes “loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred based on the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.” 227 Furthermore, in its case law, it has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include both the suffering and difficulties caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the impairment of values that are very significant to the individual, as well as the changes of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims and their family.” 228 244. The Court considers that the pecuniary damage alleged by the representatives is related to facts regarding which the Court has not ruled, because they fall outside its temporal competence (supra paras. 36 and 37). Moreover, it has not been proved that the victim’s patrimony has been affected owing to the facts that gave rise to the State’s international responsibility for the human rights violations declared in this Judgment. Therefore, the Court finds it inappropriate to establish measures of compensation for pecuniary damage. 245. In addition, the representatives have argued various types of non-pecuniary damage. The Court observes that these are based on the alleged impact of the “denial of justice” and “adequate reparation” on the “moral” harm to Mr. García Lucero related to his permanence outside Chile. In these terms, it is difficult to delimit clearly the non-pecuniary damage caused by the acts that occurred outside the Court’s temporal competence from those that have happened within its competence regarding which violations of Convention-base rights have been declared. 246. Nevertheless, the Court has indicated diverse infringements of human rights in relation to the violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection to the detriment of Mr. García Lucero. It has been proved that the State incurred in an excessive delay before opening the investigation more than 16 years after being informed of the facts. This, according to the particularities of this case and the existing evidence, has acquired its own characteristics and consequences. In this regard, Mr. García Lucero has been waiting for 40 years to obtain justice. In addition, he is an elderly person, being 79 years of age, and suffers from a permanent disability. In this context, it should be recalled that the Court has had the occasion to consider the special importance of the promptness of judicial proceedings in relation to persons in a vulnerable situation, such as a person with a disability, given the specific impact that a delay may have for such individuals. In this regard, the Court has taken into consideration the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which considered that the advanced age of individuals involved in judicial proceedings required the authorities to exercise special diligence in deciding the respective proceeding. 229 In addition, the Court underscores the fact that Mr. García Lucero lives outside Chile and that he is therefore prevented from having access to measures of reparation accessible in Chile, which could alleviate the adverse effects that may have 227 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 212. 228 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 Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 212. 229 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, paras. 195 and 196. This cites “E.C.H.R., Case of Jablonská v. Poland, (No.60225/00), Judgment of 9 March 2004. Final, 9 June 2004, para. 43; Case of Codarcea v. Romania, (No. 31675/04), Judgment of 2 June 2009. Final, 2 September 2009, para. 89. Also, Case of Styranowski v. Poland, (No. 28616/95), Judgment of 30 October 1998, para. 57, and Case of Krzak v. Poland, (No. 51515/99), Judgment of 6 April 2004. Final, 7 July 2004, para. 42.” 75