87 personal consumption and for sale “was damaged, presumably by soldiers as a form of intimidation owing to the report of the incident.” The “harm caused allegedly by soldiers to the parcel of land ruined the entire harvest of said year.” The representatives provided details of the plot and estimated the value of its annual production as approximately US$5,500.00 (five thousand five hundred dollars of the United States of America). Accordingly, they asked the Court to establish, in equity, the appropriate sum to repair the damage caused. 284. The Court notes that the alleged loss of the harvest refers to facts that have not been examined in this Judgment, but rather to facts being examined in the procedure on provisional measures in the present case (supra paras. 212 and 213). In effect, this pertains to facts not yet proven in the present contentious case, and those of which the representatives refer to in a speculative manner, therefore it is not appropriate to grant a measure of reparation in this regard. 285. On the other hand, the representatives also stated that, as a direct result of the rape, owing to the stigmatization and discrimination suffered in her community and owing to the well-founded fear of suffering another attack from the soldiers, Mrs. Fernández Ortega isolated herself from her community and avoided leaving her home, “only doing so to advance her search for justice in her case.” Consequently, the victim ceased her activity of growing and selling agricultural products for approximately one year. Since the annual value of her harvests was alleged to be approximately US$5,468.00 (five thousand four hundred and sixtyeight dollars of the United States of America) and that, there is no possibility of providing the Court with vouchers authenticating this sum, they asked the Court to establish, in equity, an amount to cover the loss of income. 286. The Court observes that the representatives did not present any documentation to authenticate the income earned by Mrs. Fernández Ortega. However, Given that both Mrs. Fernández Ortega and her husband work cultivating their land and both of them neglected their tasks owing to the facts of the case,265 the Court decides to establish, in equity, the sum of US$5,500.00 (five thousand five hundred dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in Mexican pesos, for Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s and Mr. Prisciliano Sierra’s loss of earnings. Each spouse should receive half this amount. 287. On the other hand, the representatives indicated that Mr. Prisciliano Sierra, also ceased to work the land and, consequently, to receive an income during some periods in order to accompany his wife in her search for justice, as well as owing to fears of new acts of violence by the Army. Consequently, they asked the Court to establish, in equity, an amount for harm to the family assets. 288. The Court observes that the representatives did not submit documentation or any type of calculation to support neither the alleged harm to the family assets nor the earnings that Mr. Prisciliano Sierra failed to perceive; in addition, they did not specify the time during which he supposedly ceased to work the land. 265 Mrs. Fernández Ortega stated that in her search for justice, her and her husband “[n]eglected to properly care for the plot of land and the animals,” and that she no longer “went to work in the field because of fear of the […] soldiers, and because of shame aswell,” adding that her husband also did not “go to work, and they did not plant or take care of [their] animals,” sworn statement of Mrs. Fernández Ortega before a public notary, supra note 62, folios 1486 and 1488. On his behalf, Mr. Prisciliano Sierra noted that “after the rape [his wife] stopped working on the plot of land for about one year” and that he “neglect[ed] the land and the animals,”, sworn statement of Mr. Prisciliano Sierra before a public notary, supra note 66, folio 968. Lastly, the expert Correa González stated that “[t]he time and effort expended before the various governmental, state, and international institutions has cost [Mrs. Fernandez Ortega] and her husband economically, because they had to abandon their daily activities to dedicate themselves to the processing of the complaint,” psycho-social expert opinion by Mrs. Correa González, supra note 113, folio 1623.