2. Considerations of the Court 212. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that this supposes “the loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenditure incurred as a result of the facts, and the pecuniary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.” 243 The Court has indicated that “[n]on-pecuniary damage may include both the suffering and difficulties caused by the violations, and also the impairment of values that are very significant for the individual, as well as any change, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victims.” 244 213. In this regard, the Court observes that, in the Compliance Agreement, the State undertook “to pay compensation for the judicial proceeding, pecuniary damage and nonpecuniary damage” to Melba Suárez Peralta and Melba Peralta Mendoza, as beneficiaries. This compensation was agreed as follows: (a) US$250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) to Melba Suárez Peralta, and (b) US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) to Melba Peralta Mendoza. 214. The Court finds that the undertaking to compensate the victims, which includes the pecuniary reparation agreed by the parties to the Compliance Agreement for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, represents a positive step taken by Ecuador in compliance with its international treaty-based obligations. Consequently, the Court considers that the amount previously agreed by the State and the victims, under which the State of Ecuador must pay compensation to Melba Suárez Peralta in the amount of US$250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) and to Melba Peralta Mendoza in the amount of US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) is appropriate. This corresponds to compensation for both the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention) of Mrs. Suárez Peralta and Mrs. Peralta Mendoza, and for the violation of the obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity (Article 5 of the Convention) of Mrs. Suárez Peralta declared in this Judgment. In addition, it is indicated that the payment of this compensation is not subject to the presentation of any type of voucher for the respective expenses. E. Costs and expenses 215. The representative asked the Court to order the State to “reimburse all the costs and expenses incurred by the legal representatives in the litigations before the Ecuadorian domestic courts and by submitting and litigating the case before the organs of the interAmerican system.” For the litigation in the Ecuadorian State, the representative requested the sum of US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) for the lawyer José Peralta Rendón. For the litigation before the inter-American system, the representative requested the sum of US$40,000 (forty thousand United States dollars) for the lawyer Jorge Sosa Meza. 216. Meanwhile, the State indicated that, since the tax declaration before the Internal Income Tax Service does not reflect the amounts declared and does not provide appropriate evidence in this regard, it asked the Court to establish, in equity, the amounts corresponding to costs and expenses, which should not exceed the $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) that the State paid in the case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. 243 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. ("In vitro fertilization"), supra, para. 349. 244 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of García and family members, supra, para. 224. 57