- 97 the most urgent expenses, such as the mortgage on the house and some services. According to Mr.
López Lone, they have subsisted, “since […] 2010, working as technical advisers to the Association
of Judges for Democracy,” but owing to the dismissals, they had to change the plans they had for
their children to “study in certain universities.” Also, their daughter Carmen Haydée testified that
her parents had the added burden of “responsibilities related to their professional work, their work
in the AJD, and the actions […] relating to the disciplinary proceedings,” and that “the family’s life
project was brought to a halt.” Their son José Ernesto indicated that the dismissal “had financial
implications, [because] the family’s two sources of financial income were cut off at one and the
same time.” Lastly, their oldest son, Daniel Antonio, indicated that, owing to the dismissals, they
had to cut back on any expense that was not exclusively necessary and, for seven months, he had
to assume the expense of the mortgage on the house and payment of utilities.
317. Mr. Chévez de la Rocha stated that “in view of the delicate financial situation in which [he]
was placed by the dismissal, because [he] had not even completed payments on the house [he]
lived in with [his] family, and with two children of four and six years of age at the time, [he]
decided to take the money [corresponding to the employment benefits] as payment in advance for
the harm caused; [and] merely considered the amount obtained as an advance for the difficult
financial situation to which [he] was relegated.” He indicated that the dismissal “had an extremely
negative impact on [his] life and on that of [his] family; [they] lost the right to life insurance and, in
particular, to the medical insurance that was paid for by the Judiciary, and which [his] children used
regularly because they were both born with allergies.” He also stated that his wife, who had “a
reproductive health problem, had to delay her visits to the gynecologist, owing to the high financial
cost involved.” Also, before the dismissal, he had considered paying off the house and then selling it
to buy another one in “a less conflictive part of the city,” but could not do this and now the value of
the house had declined because it was located in a dangerous area. Mr. Chévez de la Rocha was
without work for four months following his dismissal until he began to work as coordinator of a
project for the defense and protection of human rights in the Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y
Comunicación (ERIC) founded by the Jesuits in Honduras. Meanwhile, his wife underlined that they
had endured many financial difficulties and even had to take out a three-year loan to pay for their
children’s schooling.468
318. The Court notes that the representatives had asked it to determine, in fairness, the amount
for consequential damage suffered by the victims in this case, while they had indicated the specific
amounts that would correspond to the victims for loss of earnings, by calculating the amounts they
failed to receive for salary and other employment benefits, based on the information submitted by
the State. The State did not present any specific comments on the amounts indicated by the
representatives. The Court also observes that, at the domestic level, Mr. Chévez de la Rocha had
received a sum corresponding to the payment of employment benefits, which had been deducted
from the representatives’ claim. In this regard, the Court recalls that pecuniary damage should
cover the salaries and employment benefits that the victims failed to receive from the time of their
arbitrary removal and up until the date of the delivery of this judgment, including the corresponding
interest and other related concepts.469 Consequently, and based on the calculations presented by
the representatives in the context of salaries that were not received, the Court decides to establish
the sums of US$162,000.00 (one hundred and sixty-two thousand United States dollars) for Adán
Guillermo López Lone; US$214,000.00 (two hundred and fourteen thousand United States dollars)
for Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, and US$49,000.00 (forth-nine thousand United States dollars)
for Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha for loss of earnings. In addition, the Court decides to establish,
468
The Court notes that the representatives presented a certification of a three-year personal loan in the name of Mr.
Chévez de la Rocha, for 156,800.00 lempiras. At June 30, 2014, the balance was 88,790.76 lempiras, and he has a mortgage
for 202,800.00 lempiras for a term of 228 months, with a balance at June 30, 2014, of 68,292.44 lempiras (evidence file, folio
5786).
469
Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra, para. 184.