years since 2004 that no deposits had been made […] in order to ensure a decent retirement” for the two victims. 203. The State argued that it had not established any amount as compensation for the concept of loss of earnings. However, in its opinion, this amount could not be calculated based on the annexes provided by the representatives; rather it should be adapted to the equity standard used uniformly by the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay “based on article 82 of the Labor Code, which establishes the possibility of a compensation, based on equity, equivalent to twelve (12) months’ salary in cases of dismissal in which just cause has not been proved.” It asked that the Court take this equity standard into account. It argued that the appraisal prepared by an accountant and offered by the representatives was not valid because it had not been prepared within the framework of the proceedings. 204. The State also indicated that Mr. Fernández Gadea had taken early retirement in 2007 and, since his death, his wife had received the corresponding pension. It added that, Mr. Ríos Ávalos, who had been unable to accede to retirement as a justice because he had not made the minimum number of contributions, had continuously recorded pension contributions from the Universidad Nacional de Asunción since December 2003. Therefore, when calculating the compensation, “the amounts received since December 2003, corresponding to functions incompatible with the exercise of judicial office, must be deducted.” 205. In its case law, this Court has indicated that the concept of pecuniary damage supposes the loss of, or detriment to, the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.189 In addition, the Court reiterates and underscores the compensatory character of damages, the nature and amount of which will depend on the harm caused; thus, they should not either enrich or impoverish the victims or their heirs.190 206. To substantiate their claim for compensation for loss of earnings over the period 2004 to 2019, the representatives provided a document entitled: “Expert opinion on salary revaluation,” signed by an “accountant and valuation expert,” that included amounts identical to those claimed for Mr. Ríos Ávalos. Different items were taken into account to make the corresponding calculation (salaries, representation expenses, bonuses and allowances), with the indication that the sums had been updated “due to the variation in the Consumer Price Index,” on the basis of data from the Central Bank of Paraguay.191 207. The Court recalls that the annexes that the representatives had attached to their pleadings and motions brief were admitted as documentary evidence (supra para. 17); consequently, the State’s objection that the procedural rules for expert evidence were not complied with has no merit. 208. The representatives also provided a “print-out of a payroll” of “salaries and emoluments” relating to the earnings “corresponding to the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice” for the period 2004 to 2019, issued by that organ’s Human Resources Directorate. This document, which the State did not challenge, provides details for each of the said years of the remunerations corresponding to the justices of the Supreme Court for salaries, representation Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 185. 190 Cf. Case of the "White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 79, and Case of Chinchilla Sandoval et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, para. 300. 191 Cf. Document entitled: “Expert opinion on salary revaluation” signed by Celso Cañiza Paredes (evidence file, volume IV, annex XV.F to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 8846 to 8860). 189 49