-31134. For their part, the representatives requested ordering to the State that “the Legislative Assembly issue a decree declaring that Eduardo Benjamín Colindres always complied with the requirements of suitability, training, and competence [and] notorious morality for the exercise as Principal Judge of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, as well as the admission of the arbitrariness committed by that State agency for having removed him from office.” Likewise, they requested that “in a solemn plenary session, with the presence of all the Supreme Electoral Tribunal judges, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and judges of the Constitutional Division, the President of the Legislative Assembly” read the preceding decree in its entirety. 135. The Court considers that the issue of this Judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victim. Therefore, it does not find it necessary to order said additional measures, without prejudice to the State deciding to adopt and grant them internally. E. Compensation 136. The Committee requested “providing reparation for the consequences of the violations established in the [Merits Report] including both pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.” For their part, the representatives requested payment of compensation for pecuniary damage and nonpecuniary damage. The State requested that if the international responsibility of the State is upheld, it be taken into account that Mr. Colindres has already been paid the salary and compensation under the framework of domestic proceedings filed by him. 137. Regarding the State's request, the Court notes that the payment of wages not received and the compensation for non-pecuniary damage granted internally to Mr. Colindres Schonenberg corresponds only to the time of his dismissal following the first dismissal. At the domestic level, no compensation has been awarded for the second dismissal. Therefore, the victim has not received reparations for the violations determined in this judgment. E.1 Pecuniary damages 138. The representatives argued that “one year and twenty-eight days remained, precisely, for Eduardo Benjamín Colindres to finish out his post as Supreme Electoral Tribunal judge.” In this sense, they asked the Court to take as a parameter for determining the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage “salaries, representation expenses, trips abroad to seminars, conferences, electoral observations, or other activities, travel allowances, benefits and/or services that Dr. Eduardo Benjamín Colindres should have received and that, in practice, the judge [who replaced him] received.” However, they indicated that they would not request the pertinent compensation for the consequential damages caused. 139. The State argued that “trips abroad as such are not an inherent part of the exercise of a position, nor can they be considered detrimental to the income of the alleged victim, since the travel expenses paid constitute recognition of the costs that the exercise of the public office performed within the framework of a mission abroad.” It added that the public administration in El Salvador “has applied austerity criteria that limit trips abroad paid for with public funds by officials, which is subject to robust citizen control; similar criteria are applied to benefits paid to public officials. 140. The Court takes note of the timely information provided by the representatives regarding the victim’s desire in the event he were not to receive compensation for consequential damages, and as a result, it will proceed to assess the arguments of the parties regarding the lost income.