document to prove the damage to which they refer.” Also, “regarding the expenses incurred by the victim’s family during the proceeding, the petitioners do not indicate the total amount, since they do not provide any receipt or invoice that would account for that amount.” Furthermore, in its brief of final arguments, the State argued that “the next of kin of the presumed victim have not been able to provide documentary evidence to confirm the expenses incurred during Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval’s stay in the COF.” 303. In its case law the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the hypotheses under which such compensation must be made. 374 Pecuniary damage encompasses “the loss of or detriment to the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.”375 304. In relation to the claims for compensation for consequential damages, this Court observes that the representatives did not provide timely evidence to prove the expenses allegedly incurred by the next of kin; moreover, the next of kin are not an injured party in this case, and therefore it is not pertinent to consider requests for compensation for their personal expenses. However, it has been proven that Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval’s next of kin supplied her medications during her confinement in the COF and also contributed to certain modifications in her cell. Therefore, this Court decides to set in equity the sum of US$ 3,000.00 (three thousand dollars of the United States) in compensation for those expenses, which shall be paid to Mrs. Marta María Gantenbein Chinchilla within the term established for that purpose (infra para. 321). 305. In relation to the alleged loss of income of Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval, the Court considers that the facts accredited do not establish her real capacity to undertake remunerative activities, based on a possible outcome, not proven, according to which she would have received a benefit of an alternative penalty to imprisonment from 2002. In other words, these claims by the representatives, in addition to being time-barred, do not provide sufficient arguments or information regarding the supposed loss of profits, and therefore the Court does not consider it pertinent to order reparations in relation to this item. D.2 Non-pecuniary damage 306. The representatives argued that “to calculate moral damage it is necessary to consider the suffering and ailments suffered by Mrs. Maria Inés Chinchilla Sandoval during her final years of incarceration, the severe deterioration of her health, and particularly her physical disability, which severely restricted her mobility and caused her unnecessary suffering. That suffering, provoked during the time she was deprived of her liberty, persists through the psychological sequelae endured by her next of kin, who were directly harmed by the humiliations she suffered and by the conditions to which was subjected while alive.” Subsequently, based on the calculations contained in their final written arguments, the representatives considered it “equitable to request compensation of US$50,000.00 for moral damage for each of the victims,” equivalent to Q. 1,149,000.00 (Guatemalan quetzales) approximately. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 194. 374 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 43, and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 194. 375 93