61. With regard in particular to determination of the amounts for pecuniary reparation of a moral prejudice, it is admitted that the determination should be done equitably taking into account the specific circumstances of each case. As stated by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: “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...""4 62. In the instant case, the Court notes in particular that the lump sum amounts submitted by the Applicants for each victim have not been formally contested by the Respondent State. In the circumstances, the Court, on grounds of equity, and considering that the sufferings of the victims concerned occurred over many years (supra paras 3 to 7) does not see any reason why the said amounts should not be awarded as they are. The Court therefore grants the claims for reparation for moral prejudice suffered by the victims identified in paragraph 50 above, who would paragraph 54 above, that is: 25 million CFA have to furnish the proof mentioned in F per spouse, 15 million per child, and 10 and Costs), Judgment of 16 November 2009, paras 450 and 451; see also HCHR Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violation of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law, Resolution 60/147 adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 2005, Principle 15. 24 ACHR: Case of Goiburu et al. v, Paraguay, (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 22 September 2006 para. 156; “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". See also: IACHR: “Enfants de /a rue” (Villagran-Morales and Others v.Guatemala, (Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 26 May 2001 IACHR: Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru (Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 3 December 2001, para, 53, ECHR,; para.84; Varnava and Others . v.. Turkey, Judgment of 18 September 2009, GC, para. 224 : " The Court's guiding principle is equity, which above all, involves flexibility and an objective consideration of what is just, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, including not only the position of the applicant but the overall context in which the breach Judgment, GC, of7 July 2011, para. 114. ey occurred”. ECHR: A/ Jedda v. U.K,