similar ones face varying levels of complexity in their operationalization,” for which reason the reintegration of the victims was not requested and that this be “taken into account in calculating the compensatory reparations.” With respect to the remunerations that were not received, the Commission pointed out that “a significant group of victims in this case acceded to a different option of the Special Program,” and thus it requested that, “with regard to the victims who obtained some form of reparation under the Special Program,” consideration should be given to the partial nature of that reparation, which could be deducted from the “amount finally set.” 146. The representatives requested that, rather than the reincorporation of the victims to their position, a compensation equal to “an ordinary month and a half��s wages for each year of service with a maximum of twelve (12) wages be paid.” However, it did not provide information on the value of the wages received by the dismissed employees. 147. With regards to the wages that were not received, the representatives argued that the amounts of the compensation should be calculated on the basis of the monthly pay received by the victims as if they had continued to work in the Congress, deducting the wages received by those who went back to work for the State. They requested that recognition be given “as time of service the period in which they had not worked for the Congress due to the irregular and unjust dismissal to which they had been subjected.” They also requested that “any other sum that they might have been granted and might have been paid as wages or compensation […] in the event that the victims had availed themselves of the system of reparations under Law 27803 and any of its amendments and the like” be deducted from the amount fixed in the judgment. 148. Finally, they argued that it was necessary to recognize “the years of contributions to the pension system in which the victims were affiliated when dismissed,” as well as “to make the contributions that are legally obligatory to the Social Security System of Health so that the workers and their families recover, if they do not have it, the right to the pertinent care and benefits.” 149. The State claimed that “it has ensured that the alleged victims can accede, according to their preference, to a financial compensation, to reincorporation or to the recognition of contributions for an early retirement as measures of reparation for the collective dismissals that occurred during the 1990s” and that it is not appropriate to recognize as time of service the period in which they did not work in the Congress. It also maintained that it is not possible to pay the requested years of health and retirement contributions because those amounts are for the active employees. D.2 Arguments regarding non-pecuniary damages 150. The Commission argued that part of the integral reparation necessarily includes compensation for non-pecuniary damages. 151. The representatives argued that the victims suffered “harm to their dignity and life plan” and, therefore, requested that “the State be ordered to adequately repair the nonpecuniary damages suffered due to the violations of human rights that occurred in this case.” 152. The State argued that “it is not possible to attribute supposed harm to the life plans of the former employees on the basis of dismissals that occurred in the 1990s.” D.3 Considerations of the Court 39