foreign company” and that the “conflicts they created and their refusal to establish negotiation mechanisms were the major causes of these situations.” Regarding the absence of cassava production and the need to purchase other essential goods, the State alleged that the Sarayaku had not presented documents or evidence to justify these assertions. As to the losses suffered by the community tourism agency, “Papango Tours,” the State observed that the presentation of a series of documents was required in order to demonstrate that it was bankrupt, including annual balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and the documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service. Lastly, the State asserted that the Sarayaku People’s freedom of movement along the Bobonaza River had not been restricted and “that the activities that, according to the Sarayaku community, were not possible because they were unable to exercise their right to free movement, must be properly demonstrated; in other words, duly substantiated.” b) Considerations of the Court 313. Regarding the damage to the Sarayaku territory and its natural resources, the Court observes that a report by the Human Rights Committee of the National Congress of the Republic of Ecuador357 was submitted, which indicates that “the State, through the Ministries of the Environment and of Energy and Mines violated […] the Constitution of the Republic by not consulting the community regarding the plans and programs for exploration and exploitation of non-renewable resources on their lands, which could affect their environment and culture.” This report refers, especially, to the “significant negative impact on the flora and fauna of the region due to the destruction of the forest and the construction of heliports.” Also, in this regard, a report of the Ministry of Energy and Mines358 was submitted that described the “land clearance” to be carried out during the seismic survey process.359 The Court has also noted that the rest of the supporting documentation provided by the representatives consists of documents produced by the Sarayaku themselves (press releases,360 or testimonies from the “Self-evaluation” document361), and an excerpt from a social study on the impacts on the quality of life and food security and sovereignty in Sarayaku.362 314. The equity principle has been used in this Court’s case law to quantify non-pecuniary363 and pecuniary damage.364 However, the use of this criterion does not mean that the Court may act discretionally when establishing the compensation amounts.365 The parties must provide clear evidence of the damage suffered, as well as the specific relationship between the pecuniary claim and the facts of the case and the violations alleged. 315. The Court underlines that the probative elements submitted are not sufficient or specific enough to determine the loss of earnings by members of the Sarayaku People owing to the suspension of their activities during some periods, and for the interruption of the growing and sale of farm products, and for the alleged costs incurred to supplement their diet because of the food shortages during some periods, or for the impact on community tourism. In addition, the Court notes that there is a significant variation in the amounts requested for pecuniary damage in the pleadings and motions brief and in the final written arguments submitted by the representatives. 357 Cf. Evidence file, tome 10, folio 6158. 358 Cf. Evidence file, tome 10, folio 6398. 359 Specifically, the report describes land clearance activities for laying seismic lines, for the camps, for trails in the drop zones, and trails for the heliport. 360 Cf. Evidence file, tome 10, folio 6396. 361 Cf. Evidence file, tome 10, folio 6588 and ff. 362 Cf. Evidence file, tome 11, folio 6753 and ff. 363 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Reparations and costs, para. 27, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters, para. 291. 364 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al., Reparations and costs, para. 50, and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters, para. 291. 365 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10,1993. Series C No. 15, para. 87, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters, para. 291. 85