61 208. The Court notes that neither the representatives nor the Commission indicated the precise scope of the measures that the State should adopt. However, in this case, the Court concludes that paragraph (h) of article 5 of Law 24514 was not, per se, incompatible with the requirement of legality of Article 13(2) of the Convention. In addition, it has determined that it was not appropriate to rule on the compatibility of the norm that is currently in force (supra para. 165). Consequently, in this case, it is not admissible to order the adoption, amendment or adaptation of specific provisions of domestic law. However, this is without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 122 of this judgment. 209. In conclusion, the Court reiterates that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victim, so that it does not find it necessary to order other measures of a comprehensive nature. D. Compensation 1. Pecuniary damage 210. The Commission asked the Court to establish both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as part of the reparation. 211. The representatives asked for compensation for the expenses incurred by the victim in his search for justice with a sum established based on equity. They also asked that a sum be established for loss of earnings, in equity, considering that Mr. Lagos del Campo had not been reinstated in his job, curtailing his labor rights. In this regard, during the hearing, the representatives alleged that Mr. Lagos del Campo was not old enough to have access to a legitimate pension, or health insurance, as this expectation was destroyed as a result of the dismissal. In their final written arguments, the representatives indicated, since the expenses incurred by Mr. Lagos del Campo had taken place over a period of almost 28 years, Mr. Lagos del Campo had not kept the vouchers. 212. The State argued that the representatives had failed to indicate the causal nexus between the acts and omissions of the State and the alleged harm. It argued that it was not possible to compensate general and unreasonable allegations; moreover, amparo and labor proceedings were free in Peru. It also argued that the source of work was private, not public, so that the State did not owe the presumed victim anything. Regarding loss of earnings, it argued that it was not appropriate to examine harm arising from a violation of his right to work, because the dispute centered on a violation of his right to free expression. It also alleged that no arguments or evidence had been presented concerning the salary that the presumed victim had received. In relation to Mr. Lagos del Campo’s rights to retirement and to a pension, in its final arguments, the State observed that the representatives had not provided any arguments or evidence in this regard in the motions and pleadings brief. 213. The Court has developed the concepts of pecuniary265 and non-pecuniary damage266 and the situations in which they should be compensated. In particular, in its case law, the Court has The Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes “the loss or detriment to the victims’ income, 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.” Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 233. 265 The Court has established that non-pecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his family, the impairment of values that are of great significance for the individual, and also any changes, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or his family.” Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 332. 266