E.1. Pecuniary damage 140. The Commission asked that the State make full reparation for the consequences of the violations declared in the Merits Report, which should include the pecuniary damage. 141. Mr. Casa Nina requested the following for loss of earnings: “[…] as financial compensation […] for failing to receive [remuneration] as a magistrate for 17 years or, in months, exactly 201 months and 3 days, a sum totaling […] 818,491.75 soles. This is calculated based on the former monthly remuneration from 2003 to 2017, and the remuneration in force in 2018 and 2019.” 142. The State argued that Mr. Casa Nina’s request was erroneous for the following reasons: (a) the case file does not contain a claim for compensation due to arbitrary dismissal, which shows that the domestic authorities were not given the opportunity to rule on and resolve the claims that it is now sought to incorporate at the international level; (b) there is an error in the compensation period used as a basis for the calculation, because a single posting was considered, whereas there were two different designations, and the conclusion of the first one was not contested, so that it could not be the object of compensation; (c) it would not be correct to apply the maximum of 12 salaries, as can be seen was used to calculate the compensation; rather the equivalent to the period of service that was effectively worked; (d) there is an error in the calculation period used because the final date could not be the current one, but rather February 9, 2005, the day on which the career official was appointed to the post; (e) under the laws of Peru, there can be no remuneration for work that is not performed, as decided by the case law of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Justice; also, there is no norm that recognizes, for the concept of compensation, remuneration for work that has not been performed and, also, the concepts of civil liability, which would involve two types of compensation for a single fact, and (f) based on the foregoing, according to the expert report prepared by the accountant of the Council for the Legal Defense of the State, the correct amount would be 23,931.21 soles. 143. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept 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.133 144. Regarding the compensation for pecuniary damage, under the concept of loss of earnings, the Court recalls that a resolution of February 9, 2005, appointed the official who would permanently assume the function exercised by the victim at the time of his removal. 134 Consequently, the corresponding calculation must be adjusted to this circumstance. Therefore, based on the period over which compensation should be paid for loss of earnings (from January 21, 2003, to February 9, 2005), and based on the amounts corresponding to the remuneration of officials with equivalent functions to that exercised by the victim at the time of the facts, the same figure appearing in the evidence provided by both parties, 135 the Court orders the payment of the sum of US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) for loss of earnings in favor of Julio Casa Nina. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Almeida v. Argentina, supra, para. 75. 133 Cf. Resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary of February 9, 2005 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 24 to the answering brief, folio 997). 134 Cf. Expert report signed by Vladimir Díaz Pillaca on October 31, 2019 (evidence file, volume III, annex 2 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 762 to 797), and Expert report signed by Jesús Jackeline León Ybáñez on January 6, 2020 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 44 to the answering brief, folios 1173 to 1182). 135 38