(thirty-eight thousand, seven hundred and fifty-two dollars of the United States of America); and iii) with respect to loss of future earnings, the representatives argued that Ms. Atala could not adequately dispose of her property, located in the town of Villarrica, due to the time she spent making regular visits. The representatives argued that the victim was unable to rent her property or obtain any income from it, and considered that the calculation of damages should be performed equitably. They proposed the sum of $96,600 USD (ninety-six thousand, six hundred dollars of the United States of America), basing the claim on the amount of the last payment Ms. Atala made on her home and a document from the Central Bank of Chile stating the daily values of the UF (Chilean readjustment unit), and considering that the payment is in most cases equal to the income from the rental. The representatives also argued that “this legitimate income [...] would have been produced had it not been for the arbitrary decision of the Supreme Court which decided on the separation of her daughters.” 288. The State considered that, since no discriminatory act occurred, “the requested indemnities are not appropriate.” The State also argued, based on Silva Mouta v. Portugal, that “the European Court did not grant any compensation [since…] having declared the existence of a violation [...] this constitute[d] in itself a just [reparation] for the damages allege[d].” Finally, the State noted that its officials attempted to reach an amicable agreement “which did not materialize because of the large [...] amounts requested by the alleged victim [that] did not correspond to the scale of the alleged damage.” 289. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary compensation and has held that this contemplates “the loss or decrease of the victims’ income, the expenses incurred […] and the pecuniary consequences that are connected with the facts of the case” 296 . 290. Concerning the alleged loss of income caused to Ms. Atala due to her being unable to rent out her home in Villarrica or obtain some other economic gain from it, given the need to use it while visiting her daughters, the representatives based their claims on a chart from June 2004 to December 2010, and from January 2011 to October 2017, when Ms. Atala’s youngest daughter would no longer be a minor. The representatives estimated the lost profits at $47,400 USD (equivalent to $23,700,000 Chilean pesos) for the first period and $49,000 USD (equivalent to $24,600,000 Chilean pesos) for the second, for a total of US $96,600. They indicated that the Court should use this chart as a guide for the fair estimation of lost earnings. 291. The principle of equity has been used in the jurisprudence of this Court to quantify non-pecuniary damages297, pecuniary damages298 and lost earnings299. However, the use of this criterion does not mean that the Court may act discretionally in setting the amounts of 296 Cf. Case Bámaca Velásquez, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 43 and Case Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 114. 297 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 27 and Case Family Barrios, supra note 31, para. 378. 298 Cf. Case Neira Alegría et al. supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 50 and Case Family Barrios, supra note 31, para. 373. 299 Cf. Case Neira Alegría et al. Barrios, supra note 31, para. 373. supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 50 and Case Family 82