73 287. The representatives requested that the Court summon “a hearing with the purpose of hearing the statements of witnesses and the reports of expert witnesses on the cultural dimension of the Community,” spreading upon the record “the Community’s decision […] that the benefits of the measures issued in compensation in this case, reach the group of expanded families that make up the community,” and that “[i]f the […] Court does not summon a hearing on reparations” they request “it set an amount in equity to determine the compensatory amount […] in the concept of consequential damages and lost wages.”255 The representatives concluded that the amount of the pecuniary damage “[would] conservatively ascend” to US$ 900,000 (nine hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America). Additionally, the representatives requested that the State “create a fund destined to covering the remediation of the lands to be recovered from third parties, estimated over the totality of the extension claimed by the community,” indicating the areas that should be included in that remediation. The State did not make observations regarding this measure of reparation. Additionally, they asked that the Court “order in equity the amount of the compensation corresponding to the moral damages caused to the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members, for the suffering, anguish, and indignities they have been submitted to during the years in which they have seen their right to use, enjoy, and dispose of their territory limited as well as all other violations argued.” They concluded that the amount of the nonpecuniary damage “[would] conservatively ascend” to US$ 1,400,000 (one million four hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America). 288. The State did not make observations regarding this measure of reparation. 289. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the situations in which it must be compensated. This 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, the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus to the facts of the case.”256 Similarly, regarding non-pecuniary damage, this Court has understood that this “may include the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his family, the impairment of values that are very significant for the individuals, and also the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”257 290. In this judgment, when solving the claims regarding pecuniary damage, the Court will take into consideration the body of evidence of this case, the case law of the Court itself, and the arguments made by the parties. 291. Regarding the representatives’ request to summon a hearing concerning the compensations requested, the Court considers that this case does not have the characteristics necessary to carry out such a hearing, therefore it dismisses this request and will rule on relevant aspects in this judgment. Regarding consequential damages, the representatives referred to the actions and diligences carried out by members of the Community to hold meetings with public authorities and other communities, for which they had to move to another location. Likewise, they stated that “evidence of pecuniary damages […] is complex to verify, in terms of the lifestyle and economic model the Community follows based on a traditional model that lacks rigid accounting or economic formalities.” However, they stated that the migration of youngsters due to the lack of means of survival and the reduction of the territory, the damages to the territory and its natural resources, effects of the standstill of productive activities during the eighteen years of the domestic and international proceedings, and the lack of access to food production areas must be taken into consideration. 255 Cfr. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, para. 314. 256 Cfr. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, para. 320. 257