fifty-eight thousand, and thirty-three dollars of the United States of America and fifty-nine cents). Considerations of the Court 150. The Court has established that pecuniary damage consists of “the loss of income to the victim, the costs effectuated with motive in the facts, and the consequences of pecuniary nature that are connected with the facts of the case.”109 Moreover, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damages and has established that non-pecuniary damages “may include the suffering and distress caused to the victim directly and the victim’s relatives, the erosion of values that are very meaningful to people, as well as changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or the victim’s family.” In the present case, the existence of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage is understandable. 151. In this regard, on November 2009, the State sent the Inter-American Commission three technical notes (Nos. 06054 and 10391 notes of November 13, 2009, and note No. 10529 of November 23, 2009) in which it said that the corresponding sum for the compensation to Coronel Mejía Idrovo is of U.S$358,033.58 (of which U.S. $194,895.81 is for pecuniary damage and U.S.$163,137.58 for non-pecuniary damage) calculated in June 2009. According to the information provided by the State, this calculation was performed by an ad hoc multidisciplinary committee formed to calculate the amount of compensation for Mr. Mejía Idrovo, which was “comprised by the Legal Department of the Army, the Army Finance Director, and the staff of the Armed Forces Social Security Institute (ISSFA).” The Court also notes that the representatives expressed their agreement regarding the amount of U.S.$358,033.58 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages established by the State, requesting only the resulting difference between June 2009 and October 2010, in which Mr. Mejía Idrovo was reinstated to active service. 152. The Court notes that in the chart submitted to the Commission by the State and then to the Court in the final arguments, the following three rubrics regarding 110 a) “the pecuniary damages can be distinguished, translated as loss of earnings: remunerations that [Mr.] Mejía [Idrovo] should have received had he staid in active service until June 2009, subtracted from the military pensions,” after discharge until said date; b) “the loss of income that [Mr.] Mejía [Idrovo] should have received had he remained until 2009 in active service, subtracted from the loss of income already received upon remaining in active service until June 2001,” and c) “the corresponding value of the pensions to be paid out, under the assumption that he had remained in active service until 2009, from July to December 2009.” 153. Likewise, the Court notes that the amount calculated by the State for nonpecuniary damage suffered by Colonel Mejía [Idrovo] is based on the “severance pay carried out by the ISSFA of the pensions estimated under the following 109 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Abrill Alosilla V. Perú, supra note 19, note 91, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 128. 110 Pecuniary damages $194.895,81 • Amount of remuneration – Paid pensions = 118.212,98 • Severence pay to be paid = 7.524,89 • Severence payments of loss of earnings – paid loss of earnings 44 = 69.158,14