95 (ii) “The indigenous communities to which the YATAMA candidates belong, not only selected them according to their practices, customs, values and customary law, but also contributed [...] certain goods and services in support of their candidates”; (iii) The calculation of the amount of the expenses incurred by the YATAMA candidates and their communities should take into account the oral tradition of the indigenous people; (iv) The Court should establish compensation for the expenses incurred during the electoral campaign, on grounds of equity. As an example, an estimate is submitted of the total expenditure incurred by a candidate for mayor (US$46,903.97), a candidate for deputy mayor (US$12,190.80), a candidate for councilor (US$16,057.05) and a candidate for substitute councilor (US$11,491.43); (v) The Court should establish, on grounds of equity, compensation for the indigenous communities of the RAAN and the RAAS, for the same concept; this amount “should be invested by the State” “in infrastructure or services of a collective interest to the benefit of [these] communities […,] by mutual agreement with them and with the YATAMA indigenous organization”; and (vi) In their arguments on costs and expenses, they referred to the expenses incurred by YATAMA in the electoral campaign in Puerto Cabezas and Waspam, but they did not request a specific amount for compensation. (b) The Court should establish, on the grounds of equity, the amounts corresponding to loss of earnings, because the YATAMA candidates had to abandon their employment or suspend their economic activities to devote themselves to the political campaign; (c) With regard to non-pecuniary damage, they requested the Court to establish, on the grounds of equity, the compensation that the State should pay to the YATAMA candidates for the non-pecuniary damage that their exclusion from politics caused them, and also to the indigenous communities of the Atlantic Coast. The victims suffered family and social dishonor owing to the impossibility of “fulfilling the undertaking they had [made] to their communities.” In addition, they have suffered anguish and family problems “because they lost their employment and [...] sacrificed their savings.” The Court should take into “account the damage caused to the life project of the candidates and establish an amount for non-pecuniary damage,” “because it will be very difficult for them to stand again as candidates in other elections”; and (d) The Court should order the State “to create a special development fund for the indigenous communities,” and they should be consulted constantly about its creation and administration. 241. Arguments of the State: