62 232. The representative requested the amount of US$ 5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) as consequential damages “to cover the medical expenses incurred by Juan Carlos Apitz, Perkins Rocha, and Ana María Ruggeri in order to overcome the psychological distress resulting from their removal from office and the public aggression shown against them by the President of the Republic.” As for loss of profits, the representative alleged that the victims, at the moment they were removed from office earned Bs. 3,500,000.00 (three million five hundred thousand bolivars) per month and were entitled to sixteen salaries per year.” The representative argued that “taking into consideration the raises applied to the salary of judges having the same rank from March 2004 to February 28, 2007,” each alleged victim has been prevented from earning the amount of US$ 194,761.33 (one hundred ninety-four thousand, seven hundred sixty-one United States dollars and thirty-three cents) or its equivalent amount in national currency.” 233. The State argued that “it had not been proven” that the “fact of their removal from office had caus[ed] emotional distress both to the victims and to their next of kin (their wives and children), and even less, that it would require psychiatric treatment in the future,” as “it would suffice to examine the pertinent medical reports to note […] that such claim was not properly validated and neither was the fact that such circumstance would continue.” Furthermore, the State pointed out that “taking into consideration the compensatory amount, the request was not sufficiently substantiated with conclusive evidence that legally supports the truthfulness of what has been claimed,” as “in the case of temporary former judges, the salaries of the judges who currently hold office as judges of the First Court […] according to law may not be se[t] in United States dollars, and furthermore, they largely excee[d] their equivalent amount in the Venezuelan currency.” 234. As for the expenses incurred in connection with the medical treatment undergone by the victims, the representative merely submitted a psychological report related to some visits of Mr. Apitz to a psychologist. No other evidence was submitted regarding the treatment undergone, its cost, or duration. Besides, no other evidence was submitted on the medical or psychological treatment received by Mr. Rocha and Ms. Ruggeri. 235. Regarding the back payment of lost salaries and related benefits, the representative filed the affidavit rendered by Ms. Ruggeri, who provided information about her salary at the time she was removed from office and the amount she should receive taking into account the salary increases applied thereto.248 Notwithstanding, no other evidentiary document was submitted to support the foregoing affidavit, as, for instance, her salary record, her tax return or any other item that might be assessed by the Court.249 Nor did the representative file any documentary evidence to support the criteria to be adopted in calculating the amount of the victims’ unearned salaries. 236. However, the Court cannot neglect the fact that the victims did suffer some sort of pecuniary damages as a result of the infringement of their rights, as stated in this Judgment. Therefore, the Court sets in equity compensation for pecuniary damages in the amount of US$ 48,000.00 (forty-eight thousand United States dollars) or its equivalent amount in the Venezuelan currency for each victim. The 248 249 Cf. affidavit of Mrs. Ruggeri, supra note 33, p. 746. Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 147.