unable to play their spiritual role, have caused profound suffering to Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Aniceto Norín [Catrimán].” It added that “almost 10 years have passed since […] they were first detained, without obtaining any acknowledgement of these violation, or any redress.” It indicated also that “the life project” of these victims “was profoundly altered” because “it was a time during which people usually start a family life,” or “they already had numerous children to educate.” It affirmed that all this “also had serious consequences for the family unit” and, in this regard, referred “to the psychological impact it has had on each member of the families” and on the communities. In its brief with final arguments, the FIDH indicated that, in the case of the victim Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, “his wives and children should be able to benefit from the reparation that he would have received […] if he was still alive.” 441. The Court has developed in its case law the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that this supposes “the loss or detriment to the income of the victims, 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.”428 The Court has also developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include both the suffering and afflictions caused to the direct victim and his family, the impairment of values that have great significance for the individual, as well as the changes of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”429 442. With regard to the compensation requested by the common interveners for loss of earnings, the Court notes that, in their motions and arguments briefs, they included an estimate of the income that the victims failed to receive while they were deprived of liberty or in hiding (supra para. 439). In this regard, the Court observes that it has no probative elements that substantiate the said calculation, or information on the income that the victims received before the events that resulted in the human rights violations declared in this case. However, the Court notes, based on the statements made by the victims and by the members of their families that, prior to the events, the victims carried out agricultural and animal-raising activities, mainly in a collective manner with their communities, which were affected following their prosecution and deprivation of liberty, with a significant impact on the economy and subsistence of the families, who faced financial difficulties, a deterioration in their living conditions, and changes in the roles of family members.430 443. The Court observes that, owing to the activity carried out by the victims, it is not possible to determine their precise monthly income. However, bearing in mind the activity carried out by the victims as their means of subsistence, the particularities of the instant case, the violations declared in this Judgment, as well as the time the victims remained deprived of liberty or in hiding, it is possible to infer that, while the prosecution and deprivation of liberty lasted, they were unable to devote themselves to their usual remunerative activities or provide for their families as they did prior to the events. 428 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 153. 429 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 156. 430 Cf. Affidavits prepared on May 14, 2013, by witnesses Freddy Jonathan Marileo Marileo and Lorenza Saravia Tripaillán; on May 16, 2013, by witnesses Matías Ancalaf Prado, Karina del Carmen Prado Figueroa and Flora Collonao Millano, on May 17, 2013, by presumed victim José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and by witness Pascual Alejandro Pichún Collonao; written statement made on May 27, 2013, by Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 29, 30, 82, 83, 213, 235, 237, 248, 255, 256 and 639), and statement made by Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 29 and 30, 2013. 144