independence for the National Assembly and the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Oversight, intended to equip government employees with specialized knowledge of inter-American standards on the dismissal of high-level judicial officers. The State argued that Mr. Aguinaga Aillón’s duties in his position as a member of the TSE were not equivalent to those of a judge, and the training on judicial independence was therefore inappropriate because it was unrelated to the issue addressed by the case at hand. 123. The Court recalls that the facts of the instant case took place in a setting of political instability, which had led to the removal of the justices from the Supreme Court and dismissal of the members of the Constitutional Court and the TSE. The Court also cautions that Ecuador has amended the regulations in place at the time of the facts and has reorganized the government institutions that were affected by and involved in this case. Because the surrounding circumstances have changed, and in view of the regulatory and institutional reforms, the Court finds that it would be unnecessary to hold training for State authorities under the terms proposed by the representatives. The Court also finds that the measures of redress already ordered herein are sufficient, well suited to the violations declared, and useful for preventing similar situations from arising in the future. It will not order the adoption of additional measures of reparation for this reason. E. Compensatory damages E(1). Pecuniary damages 124. The Commission asked for full redress for the human rights violations declared in the Report on the Merits, including the measures of compensation and satisfaction necessary to offset the material and nonmaterial damage experienced by Mr. Aguinaga. 125. The representatives asked for payment of monetary compensation for the damages associated with the total earnings Mr. Aguinaga Aillón failed to receive from the time he was dismissed until the end of his designated term of office, that is, from November 25, 2004 through January 14, 2007. They asked that the calculation of pecuniary damages take into account “salary, additional payments, official entertainment allowances, bonuses, foreign travel for seminars, conferences, election observation missions or other activities, per diem, allowances and other services that Mr. Aguinaga Aillón would have been entitled to.” They calculated material damages of USD 302,998.95 on this basis. The representatives also said that this amount should be paid with accrued interest corresponding to the 17 years that had elapsed since litigation in the inter-American system had begun. 126. The State argued that, in accordance with the case law of the Inter-American Court, reparations may not entail inappropriate enrichment of the victim, as their ultimate purpose is only to provide full redress for the damage declared. It argued, therefore, that injured parties cannot request indemnification for amounts that were not taken from their assets, such as entertainment allowances, the cost of foreign travel to seminars, and per diem. Such expenditures, it claimed, constitute “potential outlays” and not real amounts that the person failed to receive, and therefore asked that the claims for these items be disallowed from any compensation granted. 127. The Court has held in its case law that pecuniary damages cover loss or detriment to the victims’ income, expenses incurred as a result of the facts of the case and 37