the scope of Law 24,043 is a situation that has been corrected, and that the broadening of the criteria is being applied by administrative and judicial authorities. This Court therefore does not deem it necessary to order measures to modify the law or training measures. Additionally, with regard to the latter measure requested, it concludes that it has no direct connection to the facts of the case. F. Compensation F. 1. Pecuniary damage 72. The Commission asked the Court to order comprehensive reparations for the victim in view of the pecuniary damage resulting from the denial of justice of which Mr. Almeida was the victim. 73. The representative asked for restitution of all the expenses incurred during the internal process. Due to the complexity of quantifying these expenses and given the amount of time passed and the impossibility of submitting receipts, she asked for the "assignation of a representational and symbolic amount that reflects the legal expenses incurred over the more than 20 years fighting for the recognition of my rights." 74. The State, in its recognition of responsibility, asked the Court to "order pecuniary reparations […] based on a criteria of equity." 75. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept that pecuniary damage includes the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case64— that is, it includes indirect damages and loss of earnings. 76. In view of the circumstances of this case, the Court considers it reasonable to order the State to pay compensation for pecuniary damages to the victim. In the statement given by the victim, Mr. Almeida only made reference to the undertaking of "activities together with other survivors and family members to gather together more testimony" and the performance of "a series of procedures, judicial presentations, and political debates to get the reparations extended to more victims.”65 Because the representative did not provide information making it possible to establish with certainty the amount of pecuniary damages caused by the facts under examination in this case, this Court sets, in equity, the amount of US$5000 (five thousand dollars of the United States of America) in compensation to Rufino Jorge Almeida for the expenses incurred over the 20 years processing his petition. F.2. Non-pecuniary damage 77. The Commission asked the Court to order comprehensive non-pecuniary damages to the victim. 78. The representative asked the Court to establish reparations for nonpecuniary damage in equity, taking into account that "those who suffered the violation of their fundamental human rights during the military dictatorship relived that situation when the corresponding reparation was denied along with the right to equal access to an adequate procedure for securing that reparation." Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 179. 64 Statement given before notary public by Rufino Jorge Almeida on August 27, 2020 (evidence file, folios 1502 and 1503). 65 20