48 C) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses i) Pecuniary damage 182. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the circumstances in which it should be compensated.147 183. The Commission set out the general principles in this regard and highlighted that “the victims made a financial effort to achieve justice at the domestic level” and overcome the consequences of the State’s actions. It requested that, without prejudice to the claims presented by the representatives, the Court establish, in equity, the amount of the compensation for indirect damage and loss of earnings. 184. The representatives indicated that Mr. Garibaldi’s family suffered financial losses as a result of the facts. Following the death of her husband, Iracema Garibaldi had sole responsibility for their six children, two of whom where minors. Currently, in order to subsist, Mrs. Garibaldi, who receives a minimum monthly retirement pension, has to work together with other members of her family who are small-scale rural producers. Nevertheless, her monthly income is insufficient for the whole family. The financial damage is irreparable because their living conditions before the facts can never be restored. In particular, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to deliver to the Garibaldi family the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to compensate for the indirect damage produced by: (a) the transport of Iracema Garibaldi between Querência do Norte, Paraná, and the municipalities of Caxias and Vacaria in Rio Grande do Sul “to visit family members and [to seek] their support”; (b) the funeral of Sétimo Garibaldi, and (c) the litigation before national and international courts, including transport, accommodation and food. In addition, they estimated the compensation for loss of earnings in the sum of R$212,040.00 (two hundred and twelve thousand and forty reales), considering that Sétimo Garibaldi was 52 years of age when he was murdered and that life expectancy in the state of Paraná is 71 years, so that he would have worked for 19 more years, and that his monthly income as a farmer was approximately R$930.00 (nine hundred and thirty reales). 185. Regarding the indirect damage, the State indicated that the Public Prosecutor’s Office is responsible for criminal actions and that the victims did not incur any expenses processing the action in the domestic sphere. Also, in both the civil and the criminal sphere, the State guarantees free access to the judicial system by means of legal aid or by granting the benefit of free justice. Consequently, no expenses were incurred in processing the case in the domestic sphere. Nevertheless, if the Court understands that it is appropriate to order a payment, the amount should be limited to compensation for the damage effectively proved and the expenses duly authenticated as a result of the facts. The State added that neither the Commission nor the representatives had provided evidence of the expenses supposedly incurred by filing the action in the domestic courts, or of the alleged damage suffered by the victims. Moreover, Brazil added that, since the State had not violated Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, “there was no justification for mentioning compensation for pecuniary damage related to loss of earnings, because the financial losses that resulted from Mr. Garibaldi’s death could not be attributed to the State.” In relation to the loss of earnings as a result of possible violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the State indicated that “possible errors arising from the closing of the Police Investigation […] would not have reduced the income of the alleged victims; nor could it be alleged that the possible 147 The Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes “the loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal relationship to the facts of the case.” Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 224, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 14, para. 162.