352. In this regard, the Court recalls that the criterion of equity has been used in this Court’s case law to quantify non-pecuniary damage 506 and pecuniary damage, 507 and to establish loss of earnings. 508 However, the use of this criterion does not imply that the Court can act discretionally when establishing the compensatory amounts. 509 The parties must clearly specify the evidence of the harm they suffered, as well as the relationship of the specific pecuniary claim to the facts of the case and the alleged violations. 510 353. In this particular case, representative May did not specify the amounts for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, thus the type of damage for which he requested compensation is unclear. Furthermore, he did not indicate the causal nexus between the violations declared in this case and the amounts requested for the victims; therefore it is not possible to determine the exact amount of the expenses incurred by Ms. Bianchi and Mr. Moreno. 354. For his part, representative Molina presented different types of documentary evidence on these expenses. However, the Court could not make an exact calculation of the amount owed, taking into account that the documentation presented, which corresponds to different dates, is in different currencies such as pesetas, Colombian pesos, and balboas. Even though, he submitted information on the equivalent of these amounts in colones and dollars, he failed to explain clearly the type of exchange rate used. In this regard, it is not the Court’s task to calculate the value of the dollar at the date of each invoice or documentary proof. However, the Court can presume that during these trips disbursements were made for airfares and daily expenses. 355. Therefore, the Court establishes, based on the equity principle, the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) in favor of each of the following persons: Ileana Henchoz, Miguel Yamuni, Julieta González, Oriester Rojas, Víctor Sanabria León, Claudia Carro Maklouf, Andrea Bianchi Bruna and Germán Alberto Moreno, victims of this case who had to travel abroad to obtain access to IVF. C.2) Non-pecuniary damage Arguments of the Commission and claims of the parties 356. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “to make full reparation to the victims of the present case, to include both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary aspects.” 357. Representative Molina argued that the State “created a situation of lack of protection for these persons to the point of affecting them in their most intimate personal sphere, and re-victimizing them by not responding to their reproductive disability.” He also argued that “in this case, it is essential to consider the damage to their life project as part of the nonpecuniary damage because, after all, these couples were seeking to found their family with biological children, and this road map they had prepared for their life was curtailed by the State’s arbitrariness and inactivity.” Therefore, he argued that “[i]n the case of the victims 506 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 27, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 378. 507 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 50, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 373. 508 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 50, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para 373. 509 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 87. 510 Cf. Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, para. 313.