35 this case - have been subject to psychological and/or emotional suffering that includes “various kinds of retaliation that SEDAPAL has carried out over these claims, both domestically and internationally109 through freezing their salaries without the right to a raise for more than two (02) years in a row, and later through the improper relocation of the lowest subcategory in its hierarchical salary levels, even though they had sufficient merit to deserve placement in the highest subcategory;” Moreover, he indicated that due to the various forms of retaliation “that have culminated in the firing of more than 50% of employees from its payroll [... which is the] subject of this international proceeding;” 110 “and [due to] the subsequent impossibility of finding another job because of the fact that their average age was over 45 years old.” The representative indicated that, “[s]adly, there is no concrete evidence of [these] acts of violation,” but [...] it is not a massive coincidence” that the workers who sued SEDAPAL have been affected by the alleged acts of retaliation and that, in this sense, “the legal presumption that [these acts] have been committed by the company is submitted.” 122. In this regard, this Tribunal has established that reparations must have a causal link to the facts of the case, the violations declared and the damage attributed to those violations, as well as to the measures requested in reparation of the corresponding damages (supra para. 87). Therefore, the Court must examine that concurrence in order to duly rule in keeping with the law.111 In this case, the Tribunal did not analyze State responsibility for the alleged freezing of salaries, the alleged improper placement of employment subcategories or the alleged arbitrary dismissals of some of the victims given that these facts do not form part of the factual context of the application (supra para. 51). For this reason, it cannot order measures intended to provided reparations for damages related to those alleged situations. The Court also observes that the representative did not specify the particular facts linked to the alleged incidents, nor their connection as retaliation for the challenge of the retroactive application of Law Decree 25876 and the later withdrawal of some of the victims from the judicial proceeding. In addition, these incidents require a specific exhaustion of domestic 109 According to the representative, the first act of retaliation consisted of “the expediting of Decree Law No. 25876, [which] constituted an initial and immediate State act of retaliation to the writ of amparo granted to the victims, given that Law Decree 25876 was expedited for this specific SEDAPAL case. It is on the record in the text of the decree itself that it directly involves the suspension of court rulings and systems whose effect is the indexation of base salaries, elements corresponding specifically to the salary scale system. Thus it is on the record and found in the seventh clause of the Certification of Agreements in the Extrajudicial Negotiation that was filed in Annex No. 14 of the documents in evidence of our brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence. In that clause, SEDAPAL announces, with extraordinary premonitory power, in the month of June 1992 that Law Decree No. 25876 will be issued. That issuing took place in the month of November of that year.” (case file on the Merits, tome II, folio 621). 110 Among the victims that filed sworn statements in the present case, the following fourty-two (42) persons affirmed that they had been laid off as a consequence of the legal proceedings they formed a part of: 1. Luis Humberto Tori Gentille; 2. Jorge Enrique García Carmen; 3. César A. Lazcano Carreño; 4. Stanchi Vargas Julio; 5. Leopoldo Alfonso Jáuregui Pereyra; 6. Wuile Héctor Portillo Silva; 7. Roberto Rojas Bustamante; 8. Francisco Oswaldo Levano Valenzuela; 9. Felix Isaías Cotito Arias; 10. Juan Manuel Espinoza Yarleque; 11. Rosa Elizabeth Aspillaga Benavides; 12. Félix Alejandro Trigoso Granados; 13. Roberto Hall Arias; 14. Fulgencio Honorato Peña Ricse; 15. Juan Faustino Salcedo Artica; 16. Pedro Amador Dueñas Toledo; 17. Guido Estuardo Velásquez Quipuzco; 18. Toche Lora José Miguel; 19. Juana Luz Rodríguez Puell; 20. Rosalinda del Rosario Ortega Sánchez; 21. Oscar Abraham Miñano Zevallos; 22. Jaime Leopoldo Caceres Rivera; 23. Betty Ríos Cobos; 24. Víctor Manuel Jesús Rodríguez Gonzales Zúñiga; 25. Eduardo Ricardo Timana Carcovich; 26. Oscar Eduardo Moreno Hernandez; 27. Rigoberto René Carranza Chávez; 28. Víctor Manuel Grandez Rojas; 29. Arnulfo Gómez Villasante; 30. Nesse Ysabel Pizarro Pecho; 31. Daniel F. Quinto Patiño; 32. Ebel Salas Flores; 33. Martha Luz Jesús Aranguren Carbajal; 34. Eleuterio Carranza Ruiz; 35. Feliz Meza Santillana; 36. Francisco Caracciolo Rojas Espinoza; 37. Marco Aurelio Benavides Galvez; 38. José Antonio Clavo Delgado; 39. Humberto Chilet Pichilingue; 40. Raúl Orestes Rodríguez Ríos; 41. Víctor Romero Castro, and 42. Alfonso Eduardo Escobar Zamalloa. 111 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Serie C No. 191, para. 110; Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 17, para. 246, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 209.