the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.147 The Court takes note that the specific harm indicated by the representatives in the case of Mr. Fernández Prieto relates to the loss of income while he was deprived of liberty. However, the case file does not contain any probative elements to make an exact calculation of his monthly income. Therefore, the Court deems it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) in favor of Mr. Fernández Prieto, as compensation for loss of earnings during the time he was deprived of his liberty, and this must be paid to his heirs pursuant to the applicable domestic law (infra para. 145). 133. In the case of Mr. Tumbeiro, the Court observes that the specific damage indicated by the representatives stems from the fine that he paid as part of his sentence and the expenses he incurred while seeking a place to carry out his community service, which also prevented him from carrying out his usual activities. However, the case file does not contain any probative elements to calculate those losses. Therefore, the Court deems it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of $5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) in favor of Mr. Tumbeiro, as compensation for the fine he paid, as well as for his loss of earnings while seeking where to carry out the community service, and this must be paid to his heirs pursuant to the applicable domestic law (infra para. 145). C.2. Non-pecuniary damage 134. The Commission asked that the State make full reparation, both pecuniary and nonpecuniary, for the human rights violations. It added that, to this end, it should be taken into account that both the initial stop and search procedure, and the subsequent judicial proceedings, pre-trial detention and criminal conviction were not in keeping with the requirements of the American Convention. It affirmed that all these facts took place based on the initial procedures carried out by the police officers. 135. The representatives argued that the non-pecuniary damage should respond to the emotional and mental suffering of their clients not only because of the violations of their human rights, but also because of the impact on their family and interpersonal relations and in their self-referential sphere. In the case of Mr. Fernández Prieto, they indicated that it should be taken into account: (a) that the victim had to undergo flawed and unjust judicial proceedings that sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 3,000 pesos; (b) that he spent the equivalent of two years, eight months and five days in prison, and suffered the consequences inherent in deprivation of liberty: that is, deficient detention conditions, separation from his companion and his underage children, and the subsequent difficulties of social and employment reinsertion, and (c) the lack of access to medical care and rehabilitation that would have allowed him to treat a motor disability from which he suffered as the result of a car accident some months before the detention. 136. In the case of Mr. Tumbeiro, they indicated that the Court should take into account: (a) that, even though he did not suffer the consequences of deprivation of his liberty, he was subjected to criminal proceedings that sentenced him to pay a fine, and carry out community service and adapt to strict rules of conduct to avoid imprisonment; (b) the problems resulting from having tried to find a place where he could carry out his community service, because he was rejected in numerous places, which had an impact on the length of time he was serving this sentence, and (c) the repercussions that flawed and unjust criminal proceedings had on his family circle. Based on the foregoing, they asked the Court to decide, in equity, payment of a sum of money in favor of the victims. The State did not comment on these requests. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia, supra, para. 160. 147 41