processing their migratory status, etc.)”; c) expenses generated by their return from exile; d) “[c]osts of medical and/or psychological treatment for different family members, as well as the expenses incurred for the respective treatments”, and e) lost earnings, including the income that A.A. received monthly and the “income earned monthly by the relatives (children and grandchildren) who lost their jobs as a result of their forced displacement.” In addition, they requested that the Court order the payment “of monetary compensation for moral damage, calculated according to equity and based on the psychological assessment submitted to the Inter-American Commission.” 268. The State argued that it is not responsible for providing any form of compensation to the family of Mr. A.A., since it does not consider itself responsible for the violations alleged in this case. It emphasized that the representatives did not provide any evidence of the pecuniary damage suffered by the victims and that “no type of pecuniary reparation is owed for moral damage,” since it “has conducted a serious and diligent investigation […] to determine what happened to them.” In addition, the relatives “have never requested psychological help from the State or indicated that they have an impediment to their emotional recovery.” D.2. Considerations of the Court D.2.1. Pecuniary damages 269. First, having determined that there was no proven violation of Article 4 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. A.A. (supra para. 149), the Court considers that it is not appropriate to order the State to provide reimbursement for the expenses incurred as a consequence of his death, including funeral expenses and loss of earnings of Mr. A.A. 270. On the other hand, with respect to the pecuniary damage presumably caused by the displacement of E.A., J.A. and K.A. from their community, and of C.A., B.A., L.A. and N.A. outside of Guatemala, and by the return of B.A. from Mexico, the Court finds that the representatives did not specify the nature of the expenses incurred by these events, beyond indicating in general terms that they included “rents, schooling, legal expenses for processing their migratory status, etc.,” as well as the loss of the monthly income earned by the daughters and grandchildren of Mr. A.A. in their community. In this regard, the representatives did not indicate the approximate amounts of those expenses, or who paid for them. Nor did they specify which family members suffered a loss of income, or how much these individuals earned at the time when they were forced to leave their places of residence. In this regard, the Court notes that N.A., son of B.A., and J.A. and K.A., children of E.A., were minors at the time when they were displaced (supra para. 178). The representatives did not argue the reasons for which the schooling costs should be included in this item. Similarly, the Court finds that the representatives did not provide documents that demonstrate the alleged pecuniary damage. 271. Nevertheless, the Court presumes, as it has done in previous cases, that C.A., B.A., E.A. and L.A., at least, incurred various expenses due to their displacement. Therefore, it deems it pertinent to order the reimbursement of the sum of USD $30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars of the United States of America) for pecuniary damages in favor of each of these individuals, with an additional sum of USD $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) for those who were displaced outside of Guatemala. Likewise, the Court presumes that Mrs. E.A. and Mrs. B.A. incurred additional expenses resulting from their own displacement and that of their children, which should be reimbursed. Consequently, it orders an additional amount of USD $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for B.A., who traveled with one child, and of USD $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) for E.A., who traveled with two children. 272. As to the request that the victims be reimbursed for “[e]xpenses for medical and/or psychological treatment for the different family members,” the Court notes that the representatives did not specify who had received said treatment, or when or how often 77