that the rest of the receipts for the expenses incurred by the alleged victims were lost over the years. For loss of earnings, they requested that the Court determine in equity the payment of US$ 132,000 (one hundred and thirty-two thousand United States dollars) in favor of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, and the same amount distributed to the next of kin of Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez. The representatives requested that in the event that the Court did not agree with the amount of the reparation requested for non-pecuniary damage, it be determined in accordance with the principle of equity. 164. The State alleged that while they were incarcerated, the cost of food and medicines were covered by the State and by the public health care centers. Therefore, those costs were covered to the extent possible. With respect to the cost of transporting family members for visits, it was alleged that "the victim" (sic) stated that he had been abandoned. In addition, it recalled that at no time did the alleged victims, their representatives, or the Commission reliably demonstrate the expenses incurred during the litigation. The State further alleged that Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo, and Mr. Archila Pérez were sentenced for the crime of murder and attempted murder, taking advantage of the investiture granted to them by the State when they were appointed agents of the National Police. The State paid them a salary for their work. Therefore, the State expressed its categorical rejection of this measure of reparation, and asks the Court to declare it inadmissible. 165. The Commission did not make specific submissions on this point. 166. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence the concept of pecuniary damage and the circumstances in which it should be compensated. This Court has established that pecuniary damage encompasses the loss of or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred owing to the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the acts of the case.190 167. In the instant case, in consideration of the particularities of the case and the causal link of the violations declared, the Court will rule only on the non-pecuniary damage. d.2 Non-pecuniary damage 168. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the representatives requested the Court to pay US$ 1,500,000 (one million five hundred thousand United States dollars), as compensation and for the purpose of full reparation. The representatives also requested that, should the Court not agree with the amount of the reparation requested for non-pecuniary damage, it be determined in accordance with the principle of equity. 169. The State alleged that it cannot conceive of having to make reparations and/or reward persons who violate the right to life of other persons, as in the domestic case of those who were killed; it also seriously damages the State's economy. Therefore, they totally reject the reparation and request that it be declared inadmissible. 170. The Commission made no specific submissions on this point. 171. The Court has established in its jurisprudence that non-pecuniary damage "has established that non-pecuniary damages may include the suffering and distress caused by the violation as well as the impairment of values that are highly significant to the victims, as well as non-monetary Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 223. 190 43