1.3. Request for payment of interest 297. Regarding the payment of interest requested by the representatives, the Court recalls that, in some cases, it has recognized different types of interest on the pecuniary damages awarded.317 Nevertheless, in this case, the representatives have not submitted clear information on how interest should be calculated; therefore, the Court will abstain from ruling on this request. 2. Non-pecuniary damage Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 298. The Commission argued that “if, for well-founded reasons, reinstatement is not possible, the State shall pay compensation […] to the victims, or their heirs if applicable, taking into account the non-pecuniary harm caused.” 299. The representatives argued that “the statements [of the judges] reveal [their] suffering,” and asked that “both the facts and also the impact of the violations on the victims should be taken into account in order to assess the non-pecuniary damage.” Regarding the national context, they highlighted that the fact of “having been removed for [presumably] being corrupt, inept, and politicized warrants a considerable amount,” and that “the non-pecuniary damage suffered to the honor of the judges […], as regards employment, and also the family and society, extended over time and was severe.” They considered that “the amount for non-pecuniary damage should not be less than US$500,000.” The representatives also asked for “integral reparation,” taking into account the effects on the “life project” of the judges. 300. The State indicated that the life project of the former members of the Constitutional Tribunal “was not brought to a halt by the State for any reason.” It indicated that the Court has not established a financial sum with regard to the life project. In addition, it considered that the sworn statements presented by the victims “do not constitute appropriate probative documents within an inter-American system that is the guarantor of due process.” The State also argued that many of the members indicated that their health had been affected, but this had not been substantiated. Regarding the sum of US$500,000.00 requested by the representatives, the State indicated that this “could not be considered by the Court, because in the interests of impartiality and procedural balance, the Court should not accept evidence that cannot be contested by the parties.” 317 In the case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees v. Peru, the Court determined the pecuniary damage based on the “legal interest” and the “interest based on the reports issued by the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance.” Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 81 h). In the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, it ordered the State to pay the pecuniary damage “plus the interest corresponding to bank interest on arrears in Ecuador”. Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 245. In the case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, which related to an expropriation, the Court concluded that, under Ecuadorian law, simple interest was applicable, and that this type of interest had also been ordered by the European Court of Human Rights in cases of pecuniary damage. In this regard, the Court emphasized that “the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that the measures used, combined with the excessive duration of the judicial proceedings, places the petitioners in a situation of great uncertainty, which increases the prejudicial effects of these measures, so that they have had to support a special burden that disrupts the just balance between the requirements of general interest and the safeguard of the right to respect for property. In cases such as this, the European Court has ordered the payment of interest calculated on the basis of a legal rate.” Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2011. Series C No. 222, para. 93. 86