it cannot be concluded that the events that occurred were directly related to the disease or that they would have had an impact on its origin, evolution or exacerbation. 227. Based on the foregoing and the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that impeachment proceedings against the victims, the procedure applied and the decision to remove them from their functions as justices of the Supreme Court of Justice, as well as the ineffectiveness of the judicial actions they filed and the excessive delay in deciding them, caused them non-pecuniary damage reflected in the anguish, uncertainty and suffering they experienced. The Court also finds that non-pecuniary damage resulted from the situation in which the two victims were unable to continue exercising their professional activities as judicial officials, with the consequence that they were unable to continue receiving the corresponding financial remuneration. In addition, the Court takes into account that the events affected the expectations that the two victims, as members of the highest domestic court, had with regard to their professional development; moreover, their removal undoubtedly had an impact on their state of mind and their future perspectives. 228. Based on all the above, for non-pecuniary damage, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) for each victim. In the case of Mr. Fernández Gadea, the respective payment must be made 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. 229. The Court considers that the representatives’ arguments regarding the effects on the life project of the two victims are focused on the interruption of their professional development, which has been addressed in the preceding paragraphs, so that it is unnecessary to make an additional ruling in this regard. Lastly, the Court recalls that the victims declared to be the injured party are only Messrs. Ríos Ávalos and Fernández Gadea (supra para. 181), so that it is inappropriate to examine the arguments relating to any effects on their family members. F. Costs and expenses 230. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay the costs and expenses relating “to the impeachment proceedings and the filing of the action of unconstitutionality, as well as to the criminal case instituted in relation to the grounds for the impeachment proceedings: fees, photocopies, notifications, notarizations and other expenses.” 231. They indicated that Mr. Ríos Ávalos had hired several professionals, “having disbursed […] for the payment of fees, 30,000.00 […] [United States] dollars to the lawyer, Adolfo Ferreiro, and 20,000.00 […] [United States] dollars to the lawyer, Roberto Hirsch, in addition to additional expenses for photocopies, notifications and other consequential expenditure,” for which he did not have supporting documents “owing to the time that has passed.” In addition, he had paid fees for an assistant professional in the criminal case, in which the “principal defense lawyers [were] Sara Parquet de Ríos [and] Roberto Hirsch […] to whom he had to pay the sum of 21,500.00 [United States] dollars.” 232. In the case of Mr. Fernández Gadea, they indicated that he had disbursed “the sum of 40,000.00 [United States] dollars to the professional […] N[icolás] R. G[aona] I[rún], under a contingency agreement signed with the heirs until the culmination of the current litigation […], 53