- 128 - well as for non-pecuniary damage. They also clarified that neither Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez nor her next of kin wish to receive financial compensation, and therefore requested the Court to grant these measures only in favor of the other ten victims in the case. 368. The State argued that the victims had “never” taken any steps or expressed interest in accessing the National Victims Support System or the Victims Support Executive Commission of the state of Mexico and availing themselves of the different forms of reparation established by law, and this could not be attributed to the State. It indicated that “pursuant to the principle of complementarity,” the victims should have recourse to these existing national entities and exhaust these procedures established by domestic law for reparations in order to determine the corresponding compensation. F.1 Pecuniary damage 369. This Court has developed in its case law that pecuniary damage supposes the loss of or detriment to the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case. 467 F.1.a Consequential damage 370. The representatives requested, for consequential damage, compensation for the procedural expenses that the victims had to incur, as well as the expenditure incurred by their families to be able to visit them, medical expenses, psychological therapy, and transportation and other costs related to their medical care. Since there are no vouchers to support the amounts requested for pecuniary damage, the representatives asked the Court to determine this in equity. 371. The Court notes that no vouchers were submitted for the disbursements made by the victims and their family members for procedural matters, visits to the places where they were detained, and the medical and psychological treatment received by the victims. However, the Court finds it reasonable to presume that the eleven victims and their families incurred these expenses as a result of the human rights violations committed by the State in this case. Therefore, based on the specific circumstances of the case, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as compensation for consequential damage, and this must be delivered to each of the ten women victims in this case who have requested financial compensation; namely, Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, María Cristina Sánchez Hernández, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares and Claudia Hernández Martínez. F.1.b Loss of earnings 372. The representatives asked the Court to require the State to pay for the loss of earnings of the victims Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada and María Patricia Romero Hernández. In the case of the former, they indicated that she earned approximately US$433.00 a month selling denim articles in Texcoco at the time of the events; however, as a result of the facts she lost this job and had difficulties to be accepted in another. Yolanda continued to work as a salesperson subsequently, Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 359. 467