62 Moreover, it requested that, without detriment to the claims submitted by the representatives, the Court should establish, based on the equity principle, the amount of the compensation for loss of earnings and for indirect damage. 226. In their brief with final arguments, the representatives considered that, for almost five years, the victims had been subjected to harassment and were prevented from freely exercising their professional activities as small rural producers and members of the cooperatives. Bearing in mind that the main activity of COANA and ADECON was growing and marketing rice, the representatives indicated that the average price of a 60-kilogram bag of rice in southern Brazil was the equivalent of US$25.00 (twenty-five United States dollars), and that the annual production of a small-scale farmer was 2,100 bags of rice. Consequently, the representatives calculated that the gross annual income of a small-scale farmer, such as the victims in this case, equaled US$52,500.00 (fifty-two thousand five hundred United States dollars). Accordingly, each victim should receive US$262,500.00 (two hundred and sixty-two thousand five hundred United States dollars) as compensation for pecuniary damage. The representatives stated that, if the Court recognized as victims only those persons indicated by the Commission in its application, it should order the creation of a fund to be administered by COANA and ADECON over and above the individual pecuniary reparation for each victim, “owing to the decidedly collective nature of the violations and harassment endured.” 227. The State claimed that “neither the Commission nor the representatives of the victims had proved that pecuniary damage had occurred, either in the form of loss of earnings or indirect damage […]”; nor had they “presented proof of the harm, or vouchers for the expenses incurred.” In relation to the alleged loss of earnings resulting from potential violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, it indicated that “possible flaws in the administration of justice would not cause a decrease in the alleged victims’ income; nor could the alleged failure to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1(1), 2 and 28 [of the Convention] result in loss of earnings, because they are general obligations”; and, regarding the alleged violation of Articles 11 and 16 of this instrument, it argued that “possible defects when granting the [judicial] authorization [to intercept and record the telephone conversations] did not cause a decrease in the income of the alleged victims.” Lastly, in relation to indirect damage, it maintained that criminal actions are initiated by the Prosecutor General’s Office and, accordingly, investigations and criminal proceedings are paid for by the State. Regarding the civil actions filed by some of the victims, it indicated that they benefited from the fact that justice is free. Consequently, it considered that, whatever the arguments, there would be no need for reparations for indirect damage. 228. The Court observes that, despite the claims of the representatives and the testimony of one of the victims that the dissemination of the contents of the recorded conversations caused serious financial damage to COANA and ADECON and led to a decrease in the victims’ income, no documentary or other evidence was provided to authenticate the alleged pecuniary damage. Furthermore, in their testimony before this Court, other victims and a witness were not consistent in indicating that the associations had suffered financial harm such as that mentioned (supra para 179). Therefore, the Court will not establish compensation for pecuniary damage based on the alleged loss of earnings from the victims’ employment, owing to the lack of elements proving that the said losses really occurred and what they amounted to. ii) Non-pecuniary damage