- 96 asked the Court to determine, in fairness, the amount corresponding to consequential damage for
each of the presumed victims.
311. Regarding loss of earnings, the representatives calculated the salaries that the victims failed
to receive based on the salary of each of them at the time of the dismissal, and added two
additional salaries a year representing the thirteenth month and social benefits. They also included
one extra salary, “because the officials and employees of the Judiciary enjoy one month of paid
vacations after each year of service.”464 The representatives made this calculation in their pleadings
and motions brief based on rough estimates, because they “had been denied” access to the
certifications of the victims’ salaries at the time of their dismissals. These amounts were adjusted by
the representatives after the State had presented the calculations of the salaries that the victims
would have received between 2010 and 2014, in response to a request for helpful evidence by the
President of the Court, in his order of December 10, 2014465 (supra paras. 9 and 38).
312. On this basis, the representatives asked that the State pay the following for loss of earnings:
to Luis Alfonso Chévez de la Rocha the sum of US$59,678.44;466 to Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza
the sum of US$238,035.81, and to Adán Guillermo López Lone the sum of US$179,435.00.
Nevertheless, they asked that the Court order the payment of back pay up until the date on which
the presumed victims were reinstated in their posts. In addition, they asked that the employer’s
contributions to social security “be paid with retroactive effect, so that [the presumed victims] do
not lose the years of contributions towards their retirement pension.”
313. Regarding the estimates presented by the representatives, the State indicated that it “trusted
that the preliminary objection would be declared admissible and that the Court would order that the
case be closed.” It also indicated that Mr. Chévez de la Rocha had been “paid his employment
entitlements in keeping with the provisions of the Judicial Service Act, and he had accepted them to
his entire satisfaction.”
314. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations
in which it must be compensated. The Court has established that pecuniary damage covers “the
loss of, or detriment to, the earnings of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts,
and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus to the facts of the case.”467
315. In the instant case, the Court notes that Mr. Chévez de la Rocha, Mr. López Lone and Ms.
Flores Lanza suffered financial harm owing to their dismissal.
316. In particular, regarding the situation of the López Flores family, Ms. Flores Lanza indicated
that, when both she and her husband were left without work and with scant possibilities of finding
other employment because they had been labelled “as persons who had been rejected and
reprimanded,” they had to reduce their family budget significantly, and their oldest son had to pay
464
In the case of Luis Chévez, the calculation was made taking into account that his effective dismissal was September 23,
2010. However, the payment corresponding to the employment entitlements that the Judicial Service Council agreed to pay
him for the salaries that he failed to receive and for social benefits “up until the date of the decision confirming his dismissal;
in other words, up until August 24, 2011,” “was deducted” from the final sum. In the cases of Tirza Flores Lanza and Adán
Guillermo López Lone, “the calculation was made on the basis of the fact that they were dismissed on July 1, 2010. At that
date, they had been paid the [salary for social compensation] for that year, as well as the first part of their paid vacations],
but not the thirteenth month.”
465
Cf. Order of the President of the Court of December 10, 2014.
466
The representatives calculated that the total amount for loss of earning corresponding to Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha
was US$83,679.45; however, they deducted US$24,001.00 from this for the payments received for advance notice and
compensation (merits file, folio 675).
467
Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para.
43, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 174.