D.4 Eliminate the indicator of “eradication of homosexuals and transvestites” from the public safety plans of the regions and districts of Peru 253. The representatives asked the Court to order the Peruvian State to eliminate from the “Public safety plans of the regions and districts of Peru,” which provide information on the incidence of crime in each jurisdiction, the indicator on the “eradication of homosexuals and transvestites […] because this policy legitimizes the violation of the rights of LGBTI people in Peru since it increases their segregation and provides a legal framework to justify arbitrary detentions based on prejudices relating to sexual orientation and identity, and non-normative gender expression. This action falls within the competence of the Ministry of the Interior in coordination with local and regional governments.” The representatives explained that “eradication” consisted “in removing individuals from the territory of a district” owing to their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. 254. The State indicated that although the representatives’ request “accorded with the transformational approach of the reparations,” it had no causal nexus with the facts of the case, and should therefore be rejected. 255. The Court considers that the inclusion of an indicator involving the “eradication of homosexuals and transvestites” in the public safety plans is a highly discriminatory element that exacerbates the prejudices against the LGBTI population and, therefore, promotes the possibility of violence based on prejudice occurring, as in this case. Consequently, the Court orders the State, in coordination with local and regional governments, to eliminate the indicator on “eradication of homosexuals and transvestites” from the public safety plans of the regions and districts of Peru within one year. E. Compensation E.1 Pecuniary damage 256. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept that pecuniary damage supposes the loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred owing to the facts and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.309 257. The Commission asked that the State “provide comprehensive reparation to Azul Rojas Marín and Juana Rosa Tanta Marín for the violations of their human rights that have been established.” This should “include measures of pecuniary compensation and satisfaction to redress both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary damage.” 258. The representatives asked the Court to order compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered by Azul and her mother. They indicated that, “before the events of February 25, 2008, […] Azul worked in the Casa Grande Health Center, where they paid her the minimum living wage at the time (that is, S/.550.00 new soles to 2018).” In addition, she worked raising and selling pigs, and also prepared food for certain events […] and had begun a university course in law.” They indicated that, as a result of the events of February 25, 2008, “Azul was unable to continue the said activities” and, currently, was engaged in “temporary informal employment.” They asked the Court to calculate the pecuniary damage from March 2008 to the date of the Court’s judgment,” and this amounted to US$65,016. In the case of Azul’s Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 233. 309 66