55 218. The Inter-American Commission indicated the general criteria on reparations and costs that it considered the Court should apply in this case and asked the Court to order the State “to grant compensation to Jorge Castañeda Gutman for the damage arising from the violation of his rights.” 219. The victim considered that “it was fair to quantify the pecuniary damage he had incurred and the losses (loss of earnings) suffered, including the expenses of his prepresidential campaign, and the loss of earnings in his daily professional activities that were interrupted by the activities related to his attempt to participate in the electoral campaign for the presidency of Mexico […].” He added that he does not make a quantified claim, but refers to what the Court will decide in this regard and, to that end, provided “[...] arguments and reasons that could help the Court decide on pecuniary reparation.” His representatives clarified that “[…] it is not the [victim’s] intention to receive pecuniary compensation or [appear before the Court] for money; [nevertheless,] they established some parameters to show that he had indeed suffered pecuniary damage and loss of earnings […].” 220. The State indicated that “since the American Convention has not been violated, […] it is not obliged to repair the supposed losses claimed by [Mr. Castañeda Gutman]” and, regarding the alleged damage relating to the expenses he stated he had incurred to finance his pre-electoral campaign, it added that “this is not a loss that can be attributed to the State, because it is not a direct consequence of an act or omission of the State, but of a decision taken freely and spontaneously by [Mr. Castañeda Gutman].” Also, with regard to the alleged loss of earnings, it argued that Mr. Castañeda Gutman “never mentioned what this loss consisted of, and did not submit any evidence to prove that he ceased to receive professional earnings or the amount in question; but even assuming that this was true, this claim is also inadmissible.” Lastly, the State affirmed that “the Mexican Electoral Law does not refer to the pre-electoral campaign, and particularly to its financing,” so that it is “absurd to imagine that the Mexican State could be responsible for expenses incurred in a process that is not regulated by the law and in which the victim took part voluntarily and spontaneously.” 221. The Court observes that the victim based his request for compensation for pecuniary damage on the alleged violation of the exercise of his right to be elected established in Article 23 of the American Convention. The Court has not found that his human right has been violated in the instant case, so that no pecuniary damage arises from it that requires the corresponding measure of reparation. b) Non-pecuniary damage 222. The Inter-American Commission indicated the general criteria related to reparations and costs that the Court should apply in this case and asked the Court to order the State “to grant compensation to Jorge Castañeda Gutman for the damage arising from the violation of his rights.” causal link to the facts of the case.” Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 124; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 259; and Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 78.