years had passed since the events occurred, the family did not have the vouchers for such expenses; therefore, they asked the Court to establish an amount, based on equity. In the case of loss of earnings, they asked for “the payment of US$92,060.00 in favor of the members of Manuela’s family as a result of the loss of earnings corresponding to the life that Manuela would have had if she had not died for causes attributable to the State.” To calculate this amount, they indicated that “life expectancy was 71 years to 2010” and the minimum wage was “US$224.81.” 303. The State requested, with regard to the consequential damage: (1) “verification of the costs that may already be reflected for this concept in the items corresponding to costs and expenses,” and (2) that “a reasonable amount should be assessed for compensation,” because “there was no relationship between the possible financial capacity of Manuela’s family and the costs incurred.” Regarding loss of earnings, the State indicated that “Manuela worked in subsistence agricultural production and also in the informal sector and this did not guarantee a permanent income.” Therefore, the State argued that the measures of reparation should not be “appreciably disproportionate to the extent of the damage, or the nature of the act or omission that was attributed to it”; consequently, “when the measures requested are disproportionate, the result can only be that they are determined to be inadmissible, without this in any way affecting the duty to redress the harm caused.” 304. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept that pecuniary damage supposes the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victims, the expenses incurred owing to the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.453 305. The Court notes that, even though no expense vouchers were provided, it can be presumed that Manuela’s family incurred different expenses owing to the her detention and hospitalization, and the actions taken in the search for justice. Therefore, the Court finds it reasonable to establish the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars), as compensation for consequential damage, and this must be delivered in equal parts to Manuela’s parents, with each one receiving US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars). 306. In addition, since it has been determined that the sentence and subsequent death of Manuela constituted violations of the American Convention, it is possible to apply the criteria concerning compensation for Manuela’s loss of earnings, which covers the earnings that she would have received during her probable life time. Consequently, the Court finds it reasonable to establish the sum of US$60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars), as compensation for pecuniary damage, which must be delivered to Manuela’s sons, with her elder son receiving US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) and her younger son US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars). E.2 Non-pecuniary damage 307. The representatives requested payment of “US$100,000.00 for the concept of nonpecuniary damage, to be distributed in equal parts” between Manuela’s mother, father and two sons. In addition, they requested payment of US$30,000.00 for each of the victims. The State did not comment on this request. 308. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage, and has established that this may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his close family, and also the impairment of values of great significance to the individual, Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 130. 453 83