116. The representatives indicated that in different parts and distinct modes the victims in this case had to pay, due to an entirely illegitimate decision contrary to freedom of expression, the total amount of $ 244,323.25 (two hundred and forty-four thousand, three hundred twenty-three Argentine pesos with twenty-five cents). This amount refers to the original judgment of $60,000 (sixty thousand Argentine pesos), the amounts carried in interest and costs in the amount of $ 138,574.75 (one hundred and thirty-eight thousand, five hundred seventy-four Argentine pesos and seventy-five cents) and reimbursement of court fees in the amount of $ 105,808.50 (one hundred and five thousand, eight hundred and eight Argentine pesos and fifty cents). This reparation should encompass the amount actually paid, of each payment, expressed in historical values, plus interests up until the date of cancellation, and must include an inflationary update system or countervailing interests so as to maintain the value of the claims. 117. As expressed in this Judgment, the Court has ordered that the decision be revoked that violated the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Fontevecchia and D'Amico, in its entirety, which includes reimbursement of the amounts paid by each of the victims, or where applicable, the Publisher's Profile with interests and updates that apply according to domestic law (supra para. 105). 1.2. Loss of earning 118. The representatives required reparation for loss of earnings, stating that in the case of Mr. Fontevecchia, loss of earnings occurred for two reasons: a) development possibilities were diminished because the judgment reduced their ability to initiate new economic enterprises, since they were renowned businessman in the newspaperpublishing world, and b) upon placing at stake their professional reputations, their employment possibilities were diminished. In the case of Mr. D'Amico, the damage relates to his recognition as a professional, because even when he was director of the magazine, he was also known as a journalist with broad experience, and he has had to face the consequences of having a conviction for violating the privacy of a person. Based on the abovementioned, the representatives requested the sum of US$ 15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars of the United States of America) for each of the victims for loss of earnings. 119. The Court observes that the representatives have made a general allegation of an alleged reduction of the possibilities of developing new economic ventures, of new employment possibilities, or of the undetermined consequences. However, they have not provided the specifics of these allegations or evidence to support this contention. Therefore, the Court held that it does not correspond to order compensation in this respect. 2. Non-pecuniary damage 120. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that non-pecuniary damage consists of the suffering and the harm caused to the direct victims and their relatives, the erosion of values of great significance to people, as well as the alterations of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or the victim’s family. 78 78 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 Barbani Duarte et al. V. Uruguay, supra note 8, para. 257. 35