García 107 and Julio Cesar Chavarría Banegas; 108 USD 25 (twenty-five United States dollars) for Héctor García; 109 USD 10 (ten United States dollars) for Cristóbal Rufino Hernández, 110 and USD 33,508.52 (thirty-three thousand, five hundred eight United States dollars and fiftytwo cents) for Herminio Deras García. 111 121. The representatives also asked the State to return with interest the collective bond that family members of Herminio Deras García were forced to post after the detention on June 8, 1984, calculating the payment at the “rate of the hardest currency,” in keeping with interAmerican precedent. They asked the Court to set in equity the amount of USD 1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars). 122. They then asked the Court to set the amount of money the State should pay in nonpecuniary damages for Herminio Deras García and his family. They added that “the life of Herminio Deras García is worth considering when determining the amounts the State of Honduras should pay,” and therefore asked that “the irreparable loss of the life of Herminio Deras García be included as one of the items to be indemnified, thus giving due recognition to the autonomous value of this loss and setting an amount in equity.” 123. This Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damages in its case law, holding that it covers covers loss or detriment to the victims’ income, expenses incurred as a result of the facts of the case and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts. 112 Case law has also asserted repeatedly that damages serve a clearly compensatory purpose, and the nature and amount depend on the injury caused; thus, they may not entail either enrichment or impoverishment for the victims or their successors. 113 It has held that nonpecuniary damages may cover “both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as other sufferings of a nonpecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their families.” 114 Case law has asserted repeatedly that damages serve a clearly compensatory purpose, and the nature and amount depend on the injury caused; thus, they may not entail either enrichment or impoverishment for the victims or their successors. 115 in 1984. They added that when she returned to her place of work, the owner told her that “it was too dangerous to have a communist in the shop.” 107 According to the representatives, Consuelo Deras García was a professional dressmaker. Her work provided her with an average income of 150 lempiras per month (USD 75) in 1984. She added that when she was detained in June 1984, she lost five days of work. 108 According to the representatives, Julio Cesar Chavarría Banegas worked as a driver in 1984. When he was detained in June 1984, he missed USD 12.50 in earnings. 109 The representatives said that Héctor García worked as a builder in 1984, after he lost his job with the Tela Railroad Company because of his union activities. They said that he was earning 300 lempiras doing contract work. 110 According to the representatives, Cristóbal Rufino Hernández was working as a security guard in 1984. After his allegedly illegal arrest, he missed work for five days and lost USD 10 in earnings. 111 They said that the amount was calculated according to his monthly earnings, the alleged 21 years, 8 months of life remaining to him, and the resulting benefits stipulated under the Honduran labor code: severance pay, vacation pay, and thirteenth- and fourteenth-month salaries. 112 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 103. 113 Cf. Case of the "White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 79; Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 205, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 243. 114 Case of “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 Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 108. 115 Cf. Case of the "White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 79, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 243.