152. The Court notes that, to prove the non-pecuniary damage, the victim provided a psychological report issued based on an interview and evaluation carried out by a psychologist, as well as his own statement. Regarding the former, although it refers expressly to what Mr. Casa Nina has stated as regards that, currently, his work as a lawyer “has greatly improved” and the family businesses are “financially profitable,” the psychologist who signed the report indicated, as part of his conclusions, that during the judicial proceedings filed to protest his removal from office as provisional prosecutor, the victim revealed “a situational anxiety reaction and emotional turmoil, indicating a slight depression, anguish, anxiety, frustration.”137 For his part, in his affidavit, the victim indicated the following, inter alia: “[…] the way in which [he] was dismissed, removed, ousted, whatever you want to call it, from a decent stable and permanent job, protected and established in the Constitution of the Peruvian State, as a Provisional Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of Peru, and the arbitrary conduct by the Peruvian State[,] has been extremely detrimental […] to the undersigned deponent […].”138 153. Based on the above and on the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the decision to remove Mr. Casa Nina from his post caused him non-pecuniary harm and, therefore, establishes, in equity, the sum of US$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) for the concept of non-pecuniary damage. 154. With regard to the allegation of harm to the life project, the Court recalls that, in its case law, it has established that harm to the life project is distinct from loss of earnings and consequential damage.139 Harm to the life project relates to the complete realization of the person concerned based on their vocation, aptitudes, circumstances, potential and aspirations that allow them to establish certain reasonable expectations and achieve them. 140 Therefore, the life project is expressed by the expectations of the personal, professional and family development that is possible under normal conditions. 141 This Court has indicated that harm to the life project entails the loss or severe impairment of opportunities for personal development that are irreparable or very difficult to redress. 142 In specific cases, among other measures the Court has also ordered compensation for this type of harm. 143 In the instant case, the allegation of harm to Mr. Casa Nina’s life project refers to an interruption of his professional development, but it has not been proved that his life project was affected irreparably or that it was very difficult to restore it. Therefore, the Court considers that there is insufficient evidence in this case to allow it to order this type of compensation. 155. Finally, the Court recalls that the only victim who has been declared an injured party is Julio Casa Nina, without the rest of his family being considered victims in this case (supra para. 31). Consequently, the Court will not examine the requests for compensation for the members of his family. Cf. Psychological assessment signed by Harvis Andrana Cordero Loayza (evidence file, volume III, annex 1 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 749 to 760). 137 138 Cf. Statement made by Julio Casa Nina (evidence file, volume VI, affidavits, folio 1280). Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998, Series C, No. 42, para. 147, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. 225. 139 140 225. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, supra, para. 147, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C, No. 114, para. 245, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. 225. 141 142 225. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, supra, para. 150, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 293, and Case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 388, para. 249. 143 40