218. The Court, for the purpose of determining the corresponding compensation, will take into account that two of the victims were working as judges, and the other two as prosecutors at the time of the issuance of the non-ratification decision, as well as that two of them received a retirement pension as of the removal from their positions and the various allegations of the representatives, related to their requests and observations of the State in this regard. Furthermore, the Court notes that it was not alleged nor is there evidence as to whether any type of compensation for removal from office was awarded to the victims. 219. In this case, taking into account the time that has elapsed since the victims' removal from office, since it was not possible to order their reinstatement in the position they held, the Court sets, in equity, the following amounts, for concept of pecuniary damage, which must be delivered to each by the State: a) USD 300,000.00 (three hundred thousand United States dollars) in favor of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy; b) USD 260,000.00 (two hundred and sixty thousand United States dollars) in favor of Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna; c) USD 210,000.00 (two hundred and ten thousand United States dollars) in favor of Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, and d) USD 200,000.00 (two hundred thousand United States dollars) in favor of Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse. E.2 Non-pecuniary damage 220. The Commission requested that the State make comprehensive reparations for the violations declared, including both pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage. 221. The representatives requested that the State pay: Regarding Mr. Cuya: due to the facts reported and the intensity of the suffering caused, as compensation and for the purpose of comprehensive reparation, they requested the sum of USD 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars). 184 b) Regarding Mr. Valenzuela: the payment of USD 30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars), 185 as compensation and for the purpose of comprehensive reparation. c) Regarding Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse: they did not request reparation measures related to non-pecuniary damage. a) 222. The State maintained that it has not violated any right established in the American Convention, for which reason there has been no international state responsibility that requires that a reparation be ordered that includes non-pecuniary damage. The State specifically indicated: a) Regarding Mr. Cuya: he knew that his position was subject to a ratification process at regular intervals. It considered that it would not be coherent for said result to have generated psychological and even psychiatric damage in the alleged victim, since his nonratification was one of the possible results. b) Regarding Mr. Valenzuela: he did not voluntarily participate in the evaluation 184 The amount was justified by the fact that the actions of the State produced a total impairment in personal relationships as well as in the integral development of their personal life relating to social, spiritual and professional interaction, in accordance with the development of their living conditions, duly accredited with the documentation. 185 According to the representatives, the Court has imposed said amount in similar cases and under the same parameters, in paragraph 165 of the Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala and in paragraph 325 of the Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. 55