E.1. Pecuniary damage 182. In general terms, the Commission requested full reparation for the human rights violations declared, including financial compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage. In addition, it requested that if Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno is not reinstated in the Ecuadorian Navy, the State should pay compensation for this reason. 183. With regard to compensation for dismissal from the armed forces, the State considered that it would be appropriate to grant Mr. Grijalva Bueno an indemnity that includes the salaries, extra payments, incentives and bonuses that he ceased to receive from January 1993 to December 1998, during which time he should have been placed on paid leave and subsequently discharged for not meeting the requirements established by law for promotion to the next higher rank. The compensation would include all social security benefits due to him, both retroactive and future. The State would make the payment to the Social Security Institute of the Armed Forces (ISSFA), in accordance with the calculation made by that institution. 184. With regard to compensation for pecuniary damage related to the facts that were not accepted and were disputed in the context of the military criminal proceedings, the State argued that in order to establish its responsibility, the alleged damage must be linked to a cause attributable to the State, which does not apply in this case. Furthermore, the State pointed out that consequential damage and loss of profits were not proven in the proceedings, since there is no direct proof of such damage. 185. The Court has established in its case law that pecuniary damage encompasses the loss of or detriment to the income of the victim, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal link with the case sub judice.145 In those cases in which wrongful acts committed by the State result in dismissal and the consequent loss of the victim’s employment, in the context of pecuniary damage, it is necessary to recognize the salaries and social benefits that the victim ceased to receive from the time of his arbitrary dismissal until the date on which the judgment is issued, including pertinent interest and other related items.146 186. This Court notes that Mr. Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno has not been reinstated to active service, and therefore the amount to be set as compensation for pecuniary damage must also include compensation in this regard. Given the circumstances of this case, and the failure to execute the decision of the Constitutional Court of Guarantees, which ordered Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s reinstatement and the restoration of his rights after his arbitrary discharge from the armed forces, as the State itself acknowledged, the Court orders the State to pay Mr. Grijalva Bueno the sum of USD $350,000 (three hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) for pecuniary damage. E.2 Non-pecuniary damage 187. As indicated previously (supra para. 182), the Commission requested reparations for non-pecuniary damage. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Guachalá Chimbó et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 257. 146 Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 184, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 251. 145 46