date, this has prevented their incorporation as psychologists in an academic establishment or an institution providing psychology services, which has had an impact on their possibility of receiving adequate remuneration. Similarly, the representatives added that, owing to the circumstances of the case, they were unable to prepare their doctoral theses, thus preventing them from increasing their professional status. They added that the Referential Tariffs for the Professional Practice of Clinical Psychology drawn up by the Psychologists Professional Association of Chile provided objective parameters for quantifying the compensation in this area and, based on this, a fair, equitable and reasonable amount – for compensation and for purposes of integral reparation – would be payment of US$70,000.00 to each of them for loss of earnings. 274. For its part, the State indicated that all the members of the Pacheco Tineo family were alive, that none of them has been declared unable to work, and “that they are not disappeared.” In any case, it indicated that the facts that originated the presumed violations occurred in Peru and that the Court should take this fact into account if it ordered the payment of pecuniary damages for this concept. b) Consequential damage 275. The representatives indicated that, as a result of the violations of the American Convention, the Pacheco Tineo family had had to face successive disbursements, including: (a) the expenses they had to incur and continue incurring to recover and legalize their professional diplomas, their personal documentation, and doctoral thesis documents that had been seized by the Bolivian State’s authorities and that involved expensive and reiterated visits to their country of origin, and (b) the medical expenses for the health care, treatments and transport of the children. They added that, in this case, the different circumstances described have required time, money and efforts that have affected the assets of the Pacheco Tineo family. Consequently, the representatives asked the Court to establish compensation of US$60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars) for consequential damage for the Pacheco Tineo family. 276. The State asked the Court to reject the claim for supposed consequential damages arguing that the facts that supposedly originated the presumed violations occurred in Peru, and that the Court should take this fact into account if it ordered the payment of pecuniary damages under this heading. D.2. Non-pecuniary damage 277. The representatives indicated that the compensation requested was “based on the emotional sufferings, manifested in the anxiety, anguish, uncertainty, expectations and frustration they underwent by not being recognized as refugees and the consequent expulsion from Bolivian territory.” In particular, they indicated that “the […] State’s actions increased the severe physical, psychological and emotional harm to the Pacheco Tineo couple and had a dramatic impact on their life project, stigmatized by the epithet “expelled” on their respective passports and in the records of the State of Bolivia.” Similarly, they indicated that this harm had an even greater impact on their three children, particularly Frida Edith and Juana Guadalupe, who were “direct and defenseless witnesses” of the events of which their parents were victims at the time of the expulsion, to which is added the fact that they accompanied their parents for more than a week at the prison where they had been deprived of liberty. They added that the separation of the children from their parents “had caused them great anguish, because they thought that they were losing them.” Thus, the representatives observed that “all this supposed immeasurable harm and unpredictable consequences in the course of the children’s life cycle and, even today, affects them.” 278. Based on the foregoing, they asked that, in view of the seriousness of the facts denounced and the intense suffering caused to those they represent, the Court order for 81