months,” CEJIL asked the Court to recognize “loss of earnings of 43,000 United States dollars.” It stressed that this amount “had not been contested by the State.” b) The FIDH asked the Court to determine a “reparation in equity” corresponding to the compensation for pecuniary damage in this case that included: (i) loss of earnings;424 (ii) consequential damage;425 (iii) damage to the family wealth,426 and (iv) the effects on the life project of the direct victims and the members of their family.427 440. Regarding the request for compensation for pecuniary damage, the common interveners of the representatives of the victims submitted the following arguments: a) CEJIL affirmed that “[t]he violations committed by the State to the detriment of Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe and his family have caused adverse non-pecuniary effects that must be repaired.” In this regard, it indicated that Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe “was subject to a criminal proceedings under an emergency law and criminal norms that violated guarantees of due process; he was deprived of his liberty in conditions that prevented contact with his family, affecting his relationship with his wife and children and with his community.” In this regard, it stated that “the judicial proceedings changed the family roles and dynamics and led to a precarious financial situation for the family as well as harassment and discrimination […] owing to their stigmatization as terrorists.” It also indicated that “as a Werken […] the stigmatizing effect of his conviction as a ‘terrorist’” caused him “profound moral suffering.” It also considered that the sentence “prejudiced his life project, because it curtailed his relationships with his community, within which he played a leading role […] affecting him particularly.” It added that “the prosecution and sentencing of Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe resulted in a significant clinical ailment that he still suffers from, and he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome and major depression.” Consequently, it asked the Court to award compensation for non-pecuniary damage in equity for Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe. b) The FIDH affirmed that “[t]he sentencing under the Counter-terrorism Act with serious violations of due process, the discrimination, the years of imprisonment or remaining in hiding, the separation from family members and the community, the humiliation of being stigmatized as a terrorist and, in the case of the Lonkos, of being 424 The FIDH calculated the loss of earnings of Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán. To this end, it took into account “the day on which the victims were captured or sentenced and the income they failed to earn from that day until they were released,” plus the “accrued interest” which could be added to the calculation made. In this regard, they indicated that: (i) Mr. Pichún Paillalao was deprived of liberty for 4 years and 2 months, and his loss of earnings was calculated at 9,100,000 Chilean pesos; (ii) Mr. Norín Catrimán was deprived of liberty for 4 years and a half, and his loss of earnings was calculated at 9,828,000 Chilean pesos; (iii) Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia was deprived of liberty for 7 years and a half and his loss of earnings was calculated at 16,380,000 Chilean pesos; (iv) Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia was deprived of liberty for 7 years and 3 months and his loss of earnings was calculated at 15,834,000 Chilean pesos; (v) Mr. Huenchunao Mariñán was deprived of liberty for 7 years and 8 months, and his loss of earnings was calculated at 16,744,000 Chilean pesos, and (vi) Mr. Millacheo Licán was convicted and was “in hiding” for 7 years and a half, and his loss of earnings was calculated at 16,380,000 Chilean pesos. 425 The FIDH requested compensation for consequential damages based on: (a) “the direct expenses arising from the violation suffered,” which included the “important financial effort in order to seek justice and to publicize the violations they suffered”; (b) the “expenses incurred by the family members, such as expenses to visit” the victims in the detention centers, and (c) “future medical expenses […] for treatment related to the violations.” 426 Regarding the damage to the family wealth, the FIDH indicated that the families of Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán suffered “important financial losses” owing to their detentions, because the victims “contributed to the family income with their agricultural labors.” It therefore asked the Court to “decide, in equity, based on the information in the expert appraisals and the information provided during the hearings.” 427 Regarding the “effects on the life project of the direct victims and the members of their family,” it indicated that “the facts on which this case is based […] signified an interruption of their life projects and that of their family members.” 143