superior rank of Captain of the Army of Peru; therefore, it considers that the victim had the project of reaching the highest level in the Army of Peru, and that currently he could hold the rank of Brigadier General of the Army of Peru, with a salary of approximately PEN 15,000.00 per month, plus the benefits and interest calculated for the 23 years elapsed since the damage occurred, the compensation amount proposed is PEN 2,000,000.00. 240. The State indicated that the representative did not provide sufficient reasons to argue why to date the alleged victim would hold the rank of Brigadier General of the Army of Peru. It noted that the representative did not provide any certificate or diploma certifying that Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio had completed the course for promotion mentioned in the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence. Furthermore, it emphasized that there are no objective elements to provide sufficient grounds that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio would have reached the rank of Brigadier General of the Army, and no documents were attached either certifying that the alleged victim was registered in the course for promotion to the rank of Captain of the Army of Peru. As for the consequential damages, the State indicated that the representative did not provide the expenses that Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio would have incurred; therefore, it requested that it be considered not confirmed. 241. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence that pecuniary damages encompass the loss of or detriment to the victim’s income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus to the facts of the case. 202 242. Regarding lost wages and the alleged truncated promotion within the Army, the evidence provided by the representative comprises the victim’s certificates of study at the Army Intelligence Training Center. It is not possible to infer elements from this evidence to determine that, had the violations established in this judgment not occurred, Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio would have been promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the Army of Peru. Nevertheless, the Court considers it reasonable to presume that the victim would have continued in the Army had it not been for the proceedings that he was subjected to. Therefore, in conformity with the specific circumstances of the case, the Court establishes that the compensation for lost wages shall be USD 110,000.00 (one hundred and ten thousand US dollars), to be delivered to the victim in this case. 243. As for consequential damages, the representative did not provide any evidence or background that would allow to perform a reasonable estimate of the amount that the victim may have disbursed as a result of the violations of his rights confirmed in the instant case. However, the Court considers it reasonable to presume that the victim incurred in expenses during the time that he was detained; therefore, the Court sets the compensation for consequential damages at USD 1,000.00 (one thousand US dollars), which shall be delivered to the victim in this case. E.2. Nonpecuniary damages 244. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to provide monetary compensation for the nonpecuniary damages caused. 245. The representative claimed that the distress endured by the victim and the pain and suffering caused during more than 18 years will extend over the rest of his life, given that the State of Peru derailed his life project, he suffered the unlawful and arbitrary loss of his personal liberty, and physical and psychological mistreatment that will mark him for the rest of his life. He was unlawfully subjected to the distress of unnecessary and irregular administrative and judicial proceedings on facts that he did not commit, on charges related to the hierarchy of command of officers and authorities whose reputation and trajectory were later found to be doubtful; he was retired from the position of Officer of the Army of Peru and exposed to social scorn by having Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 166. 202 53