not find it necessary to order the additional measures. D. Compensation D.1 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages 68. The Commission requested "specific compensation for the violation of the guarantee of reasonable period of time", which "must take into account the harm to his personal wealth that Mr. Boleso demonstrates [...] as a result of the delay in the judicial process." 69. The representatives requested the payment of USD 5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) in consequential damages for "countless expenditures of money that he had to make over twenty-one years and four months." In addition, they requested compensation in equity for the loss of earnings and lost profits caused by "not having received his full salary in a timely manner." They additionally requested the payment of USD 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damages for the delay in the process. They based their request on the impact to Mr. Boleso's life project, since he was deprived of the opportunity of fulfilling expectations, including “furthering his studies, which would have enabled him to improve his job prospects, acquire a better house, a car, or simply save to ensure his future or to deal with unforeseen health needs." 70. Regarding pecuniary damages, the State argued that the claims are not supported by evidence. Regarding the alleged non-pecuniary damage, it held that there is no evidence, due to the absence of a violation. It also held that no evidence was provided with respect to Mr. Boleso's suffering. Regarding the effect on the life project, it argued that "it was not specified which studies the alleged victim was not able to pursue, the houses or cars he was not able to buy, or the money he was not able to save, nor the way in which all these situations affected his future or impacted his unforeseen healthcare needs." 71. This Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage in its case law and established that it involves the loss of or detriment to the victims’ income and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case. 59 However, the representatives did not provide evidence regarding the amounts corresponding to pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages. The Court therefore establishes, in equity, the sum of USD 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr. Boleso. E. Costs and Expenses 72. The Commission did not address this matter. 73. The representatives argued that for “21 years and 4 months, the petitioner paid all the expenses inherent to a judicial proceeding, both at the local [...] and inter-American levels. This included, among other things, the collection of documentary evidence, copies of the case file, payment of transportation to go to the different courts to verify the status of his case, and professional fees for his attorney.” Therefore, they requested payment of USD 20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings. 59 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, para. 43, and Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 30, 2023. Series C No. 483, para. 127. 17