instant case; b) the payment of USD$150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) to Daniel García Rodríguez for expenses incurred to provide him with food, clothing, toiletries, health care, means of communication (telephone cards) and transportation for visits, during the 17 years that he was deprived of liberty; c) the payment of USD$50,000 (fifty thousand United States dollars) to Reyes Alpízar Ortiz for expenses incurred to provide him with food, clothing, toiletries, health care, means of communication (telephone cards) and transportation for visits, during the 17 years that he was deprived of liberty; d) the sum of USD$2,000,000 (two million United States dollars) for loss of earnings in favor of Daniel García Rodríguez; 283 e) the sum of USD$ 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) for loss of earnings in favor of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz; 284 f) the sum of USD$ 300,000 (three hundred thousand United States dollars) for damage to the family assets of Daniel García; 285 g) to order the Mexican State to send the pertinent communications to the domestic federal, state and municipal authorities, so that in accordance with their internal procedures and based on the applicable legislation, they may determine the annulment, waiver or administrative cancellation of any pending payment of duties or contributions, as well as any type of tax credit derived from non-compliance with federal, state and municipal obligations corresponding to the victims; 286 h) the payment of USD$100,000 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) to Daniel García Rodríguez for non-pecuniary damage, and i) the payment of USD$100,000 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) to Reyes Alpízar for non-pecuniary damage. 323. The State indicated that, in the reports submitted to the Commission, it had explained that “the Executive Commission for Attention to Victims of the State of Mexico (CEAVEM) conducted a study on comprehensive reparation for the human rights violations suffered by each of the alleged victims recognized by the Inter-American Commission, and proposed the sum of $110,000.00 United States dollars per victim, as part of the comprehensive reparation for the damage caused.” It also held that, to date, this amount “is maintained” and “is consistent with the criteria already used in cases whose facts coincide with the one at hand.” It added that “it is important to point out that, according to this Court, compensation is an element of integral reparation as it is aimed at repairing the harm caused to the victim based on a prudent assessment of the damage and the principle of equity.” 324. This Court has established in its case law that pecuniary damage encompasses 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. 287 Likewise, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, the impairment of values that are very significant to them, as well as changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family. However, since it is not possible to assign 283 They indicated that this amount was based on the income from his commercial activities, including the breeding and raising of livestock and his bakery, which he had ceased to receive during the time he remained in prison. They presented account statements, records, declarations. Note: attached are receipts that serve as references for the financial projections. Financial information of Daniel García in 2002 (evidence file, folios 23226 et seq.). 284 They indicated that this amount was based on his work as a union representative, where he earned 700 pesos per day, which he did not receive during the time he remained in prison. 285 They indicated that Daniel García’s family members were adversely affected and were forced to sell part of their assets in order to cover expenses arising from the judicial proceedings. They also had to make financial efforts to be able to cover the cost of basic goods to support Daniel’s children and help him subsist in prison. 286 They explained that this situation is due to the fact that the illegal deprivation of liberty to which the alleged victims were subjected, resulted in non-compliance with their tax obligations that could not be covered during the entire time they were illegally deprived of their liberty. Therefore, such noncompliance (with the accompanying surcharges and updates) is due to the detrimental effect generated by the deprivation of freedom, since they had no possibility of continuing with their lives and receiving financial benefits from their economic activities to allow them to meet those obligations. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico, supra, para. 181. 287 -80-