United States dollars) as compensation for loss of earnings while he was deprived of his liberty in violation of Article 7 of the American Convention. d.2 Non-pecuniary damage 155. The Commission asked that Mr. Jenkins be provided with full reparation by measures of pecuniary compensation and satisfaction that included the non-pecuniary damage caused to the victim as a result of the violations that were declared. 156. The representatives requested the payment of US$500,000 (five hundred thousand United States dollars) owing to Mr. Jenkins’ emotional suffering, as well as for the distress arising from feeling responsible for the anguish suffered by those who surround him owing to his deprivation of liberty, and for the harm that this caused to his social and labor relations. It also resulted in an alteration in the family dynamics which were severely affected by the separation. All this was added to the damage that the situation caused to his honor as a result of the stigmatization due to having been deprived of liberty for three years and five months, and the fact of being socially identified as a drug-trafficker and member of a criminal organization. 157. The State argued that, in order to determine the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, international case law in general and the Court’s case law in particular had established that the judgment could constitute per se a form of reparation. Moreover, if the Court should decide not to admit the State’s arguments, it asked that it take into account the international parameters and standards established by case law and reject the excessive pecuniary claim made by the presumed victim. 158. In its case law, the Court has established that non-pecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and afflictions caused by the violation and the impairment of values of great significance to the individual, and also any alteration of a non-pecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims.” Also, since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damage, this can only be compensated, for the purposes of full reparation to the victim, by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services with a monetary value that the Court determines in reasonable application of judicial discretion and in terms of equity.128 159. Therefore, considering the circumstances of this case, as well as the other consequences of a non-pecuniary nature that he suffered, the Court deems it pertinent to establish, in equity, for nonpecuniary damage, an equivalent compensation of US$20,000 (twenty thousand United States dollars) in favor of Mr. Jenkins. G. Costs and expenses 160. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to reimburse the costs and expenses incurred by Mr. Jenkins and his representatives during both the proceedings in the domestic sphere and before the Commission and the Court. They requested US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars) for the professional fees of the lawyers who defended the case at the national level and US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars) for the professional fees of the lawyers who defended the case in the international sphere. 161. They also asked the Court for reimbursement of the necessary and anticipated expenses of the inter-American defenders, indicating: Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of Girón et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 243. 128 36