E.1 Pecuniary Damage 125. The Commission did not rule specifically on this matter. The victim requested the payment of S /. 4,425,578.30 Peruvian Soles (USD $ 1,265,000 approx.) for unearned remuneration and S /. 4,185,941.94 (USD $ 1,195,000 approx.) for consequential damages and lost profits. Additionally, it pointed out that, due to her dismissal, she experienced an additional financial loss, as, having started to work in 1973, her retirement was under the protection of the regime established in Law 20530, one of the advantages of which was that she could retire on 100% of her final salary, allowing that amount to be increased based on the increases made for the position in which she would have retired. In that regard, she requested that her retirement be processed immediately, respecting her date of entry and the corresponding regime. 126. The State maintained that it was fully willing to comply with the recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission, however, it stated that it was impossible to comply with the pecuniary claim made by Mrs. Moya Solís. It stressed that the amounts alleged by Mrs. Moya Solís are based on entering the judicial profession and holding the position of magistrate. However, it maintained that having held the position of judicial clerk did not ensure that she could be appointed as a judge. The State also indicated that, if Mrs. Moya Solís had wanted to enter the judicial profession, she could have done so through the corresponding public tender. Regarding the request related to the retirement pension, it indicated that Mrs. Moya Solís started working in the public administration on July 3, 1973. At that time, the social security regime of Decree Law No. 20530 was closed. This regime was opened in 1985, through Law No. 24366, for employees who as of February 24, 1974 had seven (7) years or more of service and continue to do so without interruption, a requirement that Mrs. Moya Solís did not meet, who at that time had less than one (1) year of service. It also indicated that, to be eligible for the pension corresponding to the full final salary, the person must have rendered their services for 25 years, which did not happen in this case. It also pointed out that, to date, Mrs. Moya Solís also does not meet the requirements to access a retirement pension under Decree Law No. 19990, since according to what was reported by the Social Security Office (ONP) there are only five (5) months of contributions, and the regulations require that for women to access a pension they must have twenty (20) years of contributions and be sixty-five (65) years of age. 127. The Court has established in its case law that pecuniary damage involves the loss or detriment of income for victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the events and the pecuniary consequences with a causal link to the facts of the case.89 In this case, taking into account the time that has elapsed since Mrs. Moya Solís’ termination from office and that it was not possible to order her reinstatement to her position, the Court resolves to establish, for pecuniary damage, a compensation in equity corresponding to USD $ 50,000.00, (fifty thousand United States dollars). E.2 Non-pecuniary damage 128. The Commission did not rule specifically on this matter. The victim requested the payment of S /. 6,270,000 (USD $ 1,790,000 approx.) for non-pecuniary damage. 129. The State argued that the calculation of the amount for non-pecuniary damage was based on the amount used to calculate the loss of profits, which is incorrect, insofar as the non-pecuniary damage is different from pecuniary damage and the same basis could not be used for its quantification. Additionally, it maintained that, although Mrs. Moya Solís indicated that the damage to her life plan cannot be compensated, she also pointed out that she has been able to Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Repairs and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 143. 89 32