44 154. In this case, the Court notes that, due to the failure to submit the brief of pleadings and motions, the representative requested, for the first time, in the final arguments, under the concept of loss of earnings, a series of items corresponding to various sources of income of the victim. In other words, no specific arguments were raised, nor were sufficient evidentiary elements presented to establish whether they were directly caused by the facts of this case146 and the violations declared in this Judgment, nor were they presented at the first procedural opportunity that is granted for this purpose. 147 155. In virtue of the foregoing, the Court does not have the evidentiary elements to prove the causal nexus of the facts of this case in relation to the violations declared in this Judgment. Similarly, the Court has not established the international responsibility of the State in regard to the manner in which the criminal proceedings against Mr. Liakat Alibux were conducted, but rather, because of the absence of a remedy that impeded the review of the conviction. As such, it considers that it cannot grant any compensation for pecuniary damages. In addition, the Court has not determined the State’s responsibility for the violation of the principle of legality and freedom from ex-post facto laws, guaranteed in Article 9 of the American Convention. Accordingly, it is inappropriate for the Court to order measures of reparation in relation to the alleged pecuniary damage. D.2 Non-pecuniary damage 156. In its jurisprudence, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that it “may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their family.”148 157. In chapter VII-2, this Court determined that the State did not guarantee Mr. Alibux’s right to appeal the judgment and, thus, violated Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention by subjecting him to criminal proceedings in a sole instance without the possibility of appealing the sentence imposed upon him, effectively serving seven months in prison149 and a penalty of ineligibility to serve in the post of cabinet minister for three years. Likewise, the Court concluded, in chapter VII-4, that the State violated the right to freedom of movement and residence established in Article 22, subsections 2 and 3, of the American Convention, by virtue of imposing a restriction on Mr. Alibux of the right to leave the country without proof that it had complied with the requirement of legality. Under the circumstances, the Court determines that Mr. Alibux suffered damage in his moral sphere and, therefore, fixes, in equity, the sum of U.S. $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr. Alibux. E. Costs and expenses 158. In the final written arguments, the Legal Representative indicated that a number of expenses during the pendency of the proceedings were incurred, to wit: translations and 146 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso V. Panamá. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 184, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 270. 147 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra, para. 270, and Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006, para. 225. 148 Cf. Case of de los “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 J., supra, para. 415. 149 The deprivation of liberty that was ordered was a year in prison (supra para. 47).