compensation for loss of earnings, which should be determined in each case in keeping with the harm caused. 214. Therefore, in the case of Mr. Ríos Ávalos, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$400,000.00 (four hundred thousand United States dollars), that the State must pay to this victim as pecuniary damages for loss of earnings. 215. In the case of Carlos Fernández Gadea, the Court recalls that he died on June 20, 2010. Therefore, this Court, in response to the representatives’ request to establish the corresponding amount based on the equity principle, orders the payment in his favor of US$250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) as pecuniary damages for loss of earnings. The State must pay this amount as follows: (a) fifty percent (50%) to his wife, María Concepción Villalba Quevedo, and if she is already deceased, the part that would correspond to her will increase that of Mr. Fernández Gadea’s children, as indicated in the following subparagraph, and (b) the remaining fifty percent (50%) to be shared equally between his sons Carlos Aníbal, José Luis, Julio Cesar and Jesús María, with last names Fernández Villalba, and daughter Catalina Fernández Ocampos. If one or several of the children is already deceased, the part that would have corresponded to them will increase the share of the others. E.2. Non-pecuniary damage 216. The representatives argued that, owing to the impeachment proceedings, the victims “suffered serious insults, defamation, slurs, harm and personal discredit,” detrimental to their reputation and honor, that “warranted compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the amount of which should be established, in equity,” by the Court. They indicated that the dismissal decision “cause[d] [both victims] undeniable suffering, unparalleled anguish and […] serious health problems.” They indicated that all this had caused “and continued to cause suffering and harm to the whole family […], wives and children.” 217. They indicated that Mr. Fernández Gadea had “died from cancer; which was not an isolated fact because […] extreme anguish is associated with psychological stress experienced repeatedly over a prolonged period.” Thus, the moment at which he began to develop health problems was “exactly one year after being impeached,” so that it is “logical to attribute the development of the disease to factors related to the persecution suffered.” 218. They noted that the facts also had serious repercussions “on the health of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos,” and affected “his wife’s health.” They added that Mr. Ríos Ávalos had suffered reprisals such as the fact that he had been dismissed from his post as a lecturer “at the Judicial Academy and at the Universidad Católica de Asunción.” 219. They argued that “the victims’ whole life project was cut short,” because “they had […] the definite expectation of ending their days as justices.” They indicated that the life project “is intimately linked to family, personal and financial projections […] because, with a position such as the one they held, […] they envisaged being able to provide the best education for their family […] and […] fulfilling their dreams.” 220. The State argued that the victims’ life project was not thwarted because they and their family members “continued to work in their respective professions and other public or private positions, and this has allowed them to support their lifestyle.” This is reflected by the resumé of Mr. Ríos Ávalos, who continued exercising his profession and dedicated himself to academia as a professor and researcher. 51