Pedro Julio Movilla (compensation equal to 300 times the minimum wage); his siblings (an amount equal to 150 times the minimum wage); and the remaining relatives (compensation equal to 100 times the minimum wage). 240. Based on the above, the representatives asked for compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the harm suffered by Pedro Movilla and his relatives, divided up as follows:233 a) Pedro Julio Movilla: USD 100,000.00, to be distributed as follows: 50 per cent for his wife and the other 50 per cent to be distributed in equal parts among his children; b) his wife: USD 75,374.40; c) each child: USD 75,374.40; d) each sibling, as well as Erasmo de la Barrera: USD 37,687.20; and e) each of Mr. Movilla’s other relatives: USD 25,124.80. 241. The State asked the Court, if it decided to order financial reparations, to set them in accordance with the violations acknowledged by the State. 242. With respect to compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the State also asked the Court, in the event that it decided to order a payment, to bear in mind the principle of equality and legal certainty in domestic law, recognize the national parameters, and base its compensation for non-pecuniary damage on the ceiling established in domestic case law, which is a sum equal to 100 times the legally established minimum monthly wage.234 243. This Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage in its case law, establishing that it involves the loss of or detriment to victims’ earnings, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.235 Similarly, its case law has reiterated the entirely compensatory nature of compensation, the nature and amount of which depend on the harm caused, so it cannot be used for either the enrichment or the impoverishment of the victims or their heirs.236 244. Although the representatives did not provide evidence regarding the amounts of compensation for pecuniary damage, it is fair to assume that Pedro Julio Movilla’s relatives incurred various expenses due to his disappearance and the search that has continued for 29 years. In fact, the Court recalls that, when the victim disappeared, his relatives, and especially Candelaria Nuris Vergara, took a number of steps to obtain information about Mr. Movilla’s fate and whereabouts from different Colombian institutions and organizations. The Court therefore finds that the State must grant compensation for the expenses incurred, since they have a direct causal link with the violations in this case. As there are no supporting documents to determine the exact amount of the expenses incurred in the various proceedings, and in view of the particular circumstances of the case, the Court deems it pertinent to set, in equity, the amount of fifteen thousand United States dollars (USD 15,000.00) as compensation for consequential damage, which must be paid within the timeframe established for the purpose (infra para. 254), to Candelaria Nuris Vergara. 245. With regard to loss of earnings, the Court finds, as it has done in other cases involving forced disappearance,237 that since the victim’s whereabouts are unknown, the criterion of compensation for loss of earnings may be applied, meaning his potential lifetime earnings. The exchange rate applied by the representatives was 1 USD = 3.493.77 COP. It added that, as of April 27, 2021, the ceiling of 100 times the legally established monthly minimum wage in effect in Colombia was equal to USD 24,727.97. 235 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 192. 236 Cf. Case of the “Panel Blanca” (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 the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 300. 237 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 43; and Case of Maidanik et al. Uruguay, supra, para. 276. 233 234 61