- 96 “to the elevated nature of the amounts requested, [and that] this type of claim sought to convert the Court into an economic entity, which was not in keeping with the object and purpose of its functions.” It pointed out that the total requested by the representative amounted to a sum that “is evidently incompatible with the inter-American standards in effect under the inter-American system and any other supranational system for the protection of human rights as regards reparations in favor of a single person.” It also argued that the representative had not provided any evidence of the business losses, that the elements included as pecuniary damage were not included among the facts of this case, and that it would have been necessary to prove their causal nexus with facts of the case. 313. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it should be compensated and has established that pecuniary damage supposes “the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victims, 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.”380 In addition, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that this “may include the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his family, the impairment of values that have great significance for the individual, and also the changes of a nonpecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”381 314. From the information provided, the Court notes that Wong Ho Wing and his wife indicated that the family was in the hotel business in Peru. Also, in his affidavit, Wong Ho Wing indicated that he had two restaurants and an importing company in the United States of America, and that these businesses ceased operations because a building burned down and he “was unable to administer the company.”382 In addition, his wife asserted that “his businesses in the United States closed down owing to his absence; [but t]he family business in Peru remains, although the situation is not good.”383 Nevertheless, the evidence provided only authenticates the registration of the limited liability company “Inversiones Turísticas Maury SAC,” founded by the victim.384 315. Consequently, the Court notes that it does not have evidence authenticating the representative’s calculation of pecuniary damage, or the income that Wong Ho Wing received before the events that resulted in the human rights violations declared in this case. However, the body of evidence reveals that Wong Ho Wing had several businesses before he was deprived of his liberty. Therefore, the Court finds it reasonable to consider that Wong Ho Wing suffered a loss of earnings during the time he remained detained. 316. Regarding the non-pecuniary damage, the Court notes that, in his affidavit, Wong Ho Wing stated that, while he was in prison, he “suffered immense emotional and physical devastation […] as a result of the harsh environment of the prison, and also the constant fear that he would be extradited without any apparent reason.” He also indicated that “if it was not for the fact that [he had] a family to maintain […he] believe[d] that [… he] would have lost the will to live.”385 Also, expert witness Carmen Wurst referred to the fact that Wong Ho Wing was “subjected to numerous stress factors during the time he spent in prison, owing to the prison conditions, [and this] has 380 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 286. 381 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 286. 382 Affidavit made by Wong Ho Wing on August 18, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6852). 383 Affidavit made by Kin Mui Chan on August 18, 2014 (evidence file, folios 6865 and 6866). 384 Cf. Lima and Callao Registry Office. Registration of Sociedades Anónimas Inversiones Turísticas Maury SAC, of June 7, 1999 (evidence file, folio 6129). 385 Affidavit made by Wong Ho Wing on August 18, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6851).