110 401. In relation to the request for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the State argued that “regarding the allegations that RCTV employees were subjected to physical attacks, nothing had been […] proved about these presumed attacks.” Considerations of the Court 402. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that this supposes “the loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenditure made owing to the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.”401 The Court has also developed the concept of nonpecuniary damage and has established that this “may include the suffering and afflictions caused to the direct victim and his family, the impairment of values of great significance for the individual, and the changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”402 403. Although the Court does not have sufficient evidence to determine precisely the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused in this case, based on the criteria established in its consistent case law, the circumstances of the case, the nature and severity of the violations committed, and the suffering caused to the victims,403 the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars) as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, in favor of the shareholders Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Fernando Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar and Francisco J. Nestares. This is based on the fact that this judgment has ordered the return to them of the concession of the channel, and also the annulment of the interim measures covering the RCTV assets. 404. In addition, the Court find it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$50,000 (fifty thousand United States dollars) as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, in favor of the employees, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Eladio Lárez, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. E) Costs and expenses 405. The Commission did not present specific arguments on this request. 406. The representatives argued that the victims “have had to incur substantial expenses to protest the arbitrary non-renewal of the concession at the domestic and international level, mainly related to professional fees.” They indicated that, at the domestic level, they incurred additional expenditure, such as “public announcements, certified copies, notification expenses, express mailings, international telephone calls, mobile phone use, etc.” They also indicated that they would submit, “later, the evidence in order to calculate the procedural costs.” Lastly, they asked the Court to recognize, in equity, the expenses arising from the domestic and international litigations. 407. The State “reject[ed] any claim for procedural costs in the domestic sphere, because the available domestic remedies are still active and, to date, RCTV has not be found liable to pay the costs of these proceedings.” Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, para. 286. 401 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, para. 56, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, para. 482. 402 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, para. 109, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, para. 603. 403