officio, by the State. They also requested the payment of indirect damage because, from the time of Claudina Velásquez’s death, her family had been forced to incur a series of extraprocedural expenses including: funeral and burial expenses amounting to approximately US$1,800; psychiatric treatment from 2007 to date for Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz owing to the trauma resulting from the murder and prolonged denial of justice amounting to approximately US$515 monthly, and the payment of the fees of experts for the psychological appraisal of Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal and Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán. In this regard, they asked the Court to establish the respective amount, in equity, owing to the “difficulty of the family to estimate the exact amounts of these expenses.” 276. The State reiterated that it had not violated any right in this case, so that it was not responsible for redressing any pecuniary damage. It also argued that the petitioners had not submitted documents proving the indirect damage alleged in relation to funeral and medical expenses. Regarding loss of earnings, the State argued that the actuarial reports submitted as evidence by the representatives did not reflect the national reality. It explained that, if the Court ordered this, Guatemala could request specific information on what a law-school graduate earned based on the fee scale that exists for this purpose and on the reality reported by this type of professional to the Tax Administration Superintendence (SAT). In the case of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, it indicated that the evidence did not reveal that he suffered from any health condition as a result of this case that prevented him from working, but rather that his health was very good. Consequently, the State did not have to compensate him for loss of earnings. 277. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that this supposes “the loss or detriment to the earnings of victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus to the facts of the case.”355 278. With regard to the alleged loss of earnings of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, the Court notes that the representatives presented as evidence a document drawn up by a public accountant in which “he certifies” that, as a result of the violent death of his daughter, Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, [Mr. Velásquez Durán] was obliged to abandon his company from which he obtained an income […] to devote himself to managing [the] investigation in person, […] abandoning his business activities, from which he estimates that he derived an income” of US$588,031.44 (five hundred and eighty-eight thousand and thirty-one United States dollars and forty-four cents).356 Similarly, regarding the compensation for loss of earnings in favor of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, the Court notes that the representatives presented a document drawn up by a public accountant in which “he certifies” that “according to a declaration by the next of kin of […] Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz,” the global sum determined amounted to US$692,424.44 (six hundred and ninety-two thousand four hundred and twenty-four United States dollars and forty-four cents), for the “total annually-increasing income expected over the period that Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz would have been economically active, starting at 25 years of age (the date that her economically active professional life would have started), and ending at 75 years of age (the generally accepted age of retirement for an independent professional).”357 In this regard, the Court notes that the amounts established by the public accountant who prepared these documents on loss of earnings in favor of Claudina Velásquez and her father were apparently based on declarations and calculations of Claudina Velásquez’s family and the accountant himself. In other words, there is no record that, to arrive at these Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 43, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 314. 356 Cf. Report of the Independent Actuary of July 31, 2014 (evidence file, folios, 2683 to 2685). 357 Cf. Report of the Independent Actuary of July 31, 2014 (evidence file, folios, 2679 to 2681). 355 90