However, in the context of pecuniary damage, it is necessary to recognize the salary and fringe benefits that the victim ceased to receive from the time of her arbitrary removal until the date that this judgment is handed down, including the pertinent interest and other related items. Consequently, the Court decides to establish, in equity, the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) that the State must pay within one year of notification of this judgment. 2. Non-pecuniary damage 185. The Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage in its case law, together with the circumstances under which it should be compensated.210 2.1 Arguments of the parties 186. The Commission did not request a specific amount for this item in favor of the victim. 187. The representatives indicated that, “[t]he violations denounced in this case have caused [Mrs.] Chocrón [Chocrón] significant non-pecuniary damage, because […] she was arbitrarily removed without any proceeding, and that removal was made public.” In this regard, they asked the Court to “order compensation, in equity, for the non-pecuniary damage caused,” in accordance with the Court’s case law. On this basis, they considered that the amount for non-pecuniary damage was the sum of “fifty thousand United States dollars (US$ 50,000).” 188. The State argued that “[it had not] been proved how [Mrs.] Chocrón [Chocrón] had been affected in a non-pecuniary way, because the termination of the work relationship resulted in payment of the compensation provided for in the Organic Labor Law, which the victim received. In addition, [Mrs.] Chocrón [Chocrón] is not prevented from exercising her profession as a lawyer, and she could work in that area and obtain an income for herself and/or her family, so that her separation from the post of judge does not imply per se a down-grading of her situation, or non-pecuniary damage against her.” In this regard, the State, “asked that the Court assess the facts in this case objectively and, should it grant compensation for non-pecuniary damage, do so assessing the true scale of the damage to the […] victim.” 2.2 Considerations of the Court 189. The Court observes that the only evidence of non-pecuniary damage in the case file relates to the victim’s testimony during the public hearing. Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón indicated that, since her appointment was annulled, she has not participated in any competitive examination, “because during all that time [… she has] been with [her] lawyers dealing with the corresponding procedures to obtain [her] reinstatement to the post and a favorable decision.” Similarly, the victim indicated that, “following [her] removal, [she] has never returned to exercise [her] profession as a lawyer because [… she] consider[s] that [she] continues to be a judge and [… she] will not exercise [her] profession until [her] legal situation has been resolved.”211 210 The Court has established that non-pecuniary damages “may include distress and suffering caused directly to the victims or their next of kin, the harm to values of great significance to the individual, as well as changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their family.” Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra note 181, para. 84; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, supra note 19, para. 116, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 19, para. 133. 211 Testimony given by Mrs. Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 35. 54