and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.141 158. The representatives requested “payment of the salary earned by Judge Urrutia Laubreaux during the three years that he remained abroad, which corresponds to 110,210,031 Chilean pesos, and the expenses he incurred to visit his son and daughter every three months during his time outside Chile (12 trips), and the two visits that his children made to Mexico.” 159. The State indicated that “any additional measures to the restitutio in integrum, such as the payment of compensation, would not contribute to make reparation, but rather enrich the presumed victim” and that “the salaries that the presumed victim did not earn during his time in Mexico and the expenses supposedly caused by his trips abroad are new facts that […] are not part of the factual framework”. 160. The Court considers that the representatives’ arguments concerning pecuniary damage do not have a causal nexus to the violations determined in this case. Consequently, it is not appropriate to order the payment of compensation for pecuniary damage. E.2 Non-pecuniary damage 161. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage, and has established that this may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his close family, and the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, as well as the alterations of a non-pecuniary character in the living conditions of the victim or his family.142. 162. The representatives asked the Court to establish an amount, in equity, for nonpecuniary damage, in light of “the circumstances of the case, the nature of the violations committed by the State and the case law of the Court”. 163. During the public hearing, Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux stated that, as a result of the disciplinary proceedings held against him, “for 14 years [he had] had to live with an unjust sanction within the Judiciary; this has meant that [he] ha[d] been labelled a problematic judge, a maverick judge […], and ha[d] also restricted the furtherance of [his] judicial career in Chile.”143 164. The Court finds that the sanction imposed on Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux for exercising his freedom of expression and that remained on his personnel record for 13 years, as well as the disciplinary proceedings, caused non-pecuniary damage that has not been redressed. Based on the circumstances of this case and the violations declared, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$20.000,00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) as nonpecuniary damage in favor of Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux. Costs and expenses 165. Initially, the representatives asked the Court “to establish an amount, in equity, without prejudice to updating this based on the proceedings before the Court.” In their final written arguments, the representatives reiterated this request and asked that the State be Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 160. 141 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 Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2020. Series C No. 405, para. 262. 142 143 Cf. Statement made by Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux during the public hearing held in this case.. 39