69 the applicants claim to have experienced in the criminal proceedings against them. The requests for pecuniary damages consist of lost income, lost earnings, damage to their labor prospects and pecuniary damages resulting from the criminal sentences of disqualification and being stripped of their military ranks, as well as expenses incurred by their families to travel to the centers of pretrial detention where the applicants were being held. 288. Although this Court has found the State responsible for violating articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(5), 8(1), 8(2) and 25 (supra Chapter VIII-1 and VIII-2), it has not seen sufficient evidence that the financial compensation being requested has a direct, reasonable causal nexus with the violations declared in this judgment. This is in view of the fact that the declaration of these violations does not nullify the criminal proceedings or the sentences handed down against the applicants, or the consequences thereof. This Court also notes that during pretrial detention, the applicants did receive half of the monthly wages applicable to the particular military ranks they held until they were arrested, as provided by law at the time the events occurred; under these circumstances, the evidence adduced by the applicants does not sufficiently demonstrate that this situation produced the damages they are claiming or that the amounts requested are the material consequences of the facts of the case. For these reasons, the measures of compensation for pecuniary damage requested by the representatives are denied. 289. This Court, having heard the parties’ arguments concerning nonpecuniary damage and alleged harm to the applicants’ life plans, finds that the representatives did not provide sufficient proof to demonstrate that the conditions and forms of pretrial detention experienced by the applicants wreaked the kind of nonpecuniary damage they claim to have suffered. Nevertheless, in consideration of the finding that the pretrial detention was arbitrary because of the failure to review and the unreasonable amount of time involved, the lack of qualified defense counsel of their choice and the violation of reasonable time limits for the process, the Court finds grounds to order an amount in equity of USD 3,000 (three thousand United States dollars) in compensation for nonpecuniary damage to each of the 20 victims in this case (supra par. 235). 290. The Court would reiterate, however, that the delivery and publication of this judgment constitute per se sufficient and appropriate measures of compensation for the violations declared herein and feels that it is not necessary to order any additional measures. F. Costs and expenses 291. Representatives De Vita and Cueto asked the Court to set professional fees for this defense team as it deems appropriate, considering the work undertaken from 1998 until the present, the complexity of the case and its great significance for the inter-American human rights system. They submitted a similar request for the specific determination of court costs. 292. Representatives Vega and Sommer requested the sum of USD 25,000.00 to cover legal assistance in the local and international jurisdictions. They also asked for this Court to quantify court costs as it deems fit. 293. The Inter-American Defenders asked for reimbursement of expenditures incurred by Mr. Argüelles as the spokesperson for the victims before the Commission from 1998 until the Inter-American Defenders were appointed in 2012, and legal fees for professional counsel in the international jurisdiction. They explained that they had needed to incur major outlays because of the volume of activities undertaken, and, given “the amount of time that cannot be attributed to the alleged victims, and given the informality, it is impossible to expressly