94 237. The Court considers that the “injured parties,” victims of the violations of the rights embodied in Articles 23, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and of Article 8(1), in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, are the candidates for the positions of mayors, deputy mayors and municipal councilors proposed by YATAMA for the 2000 municipal elections in the RAAN and the RAAS. These people will be the beneficiaries of the reparations established by the Court. 238. The Court determined the identity of the candidates proposed by YATAMA in the RAAN and the RAAS to participate in the municipal elections of November 2000 in Chapter VIII of this judgment, entitled “Considerations concerning the determination of alleged victims” (supra paras. 125 to 141). B) 239. PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE Arguments of the Commission: (a) With regard to pecuniary damage, it requested the Court to establish “on grounds of equity, an amount determining the compensation that corresponds to the victims for indirect damage and loss of earnings” and, to this end, it should take into consideration “not only the difficulties caused to the victims by being prevented from taking part in the municipal elections of November 2000 on the Atlantic Coast[,] but also the effect on their life projects as political leaders representing their communities, whose possibilities of representing community interests in local government were frustrated”; (b) With regard to non-pecuniary damage, “the type of violations and the impact on the individuals and the community of the State’s acts and omissions should be taken into account.” The effects on the indigenous communities should be taken into consideration; consequently, the Court should order individual and collective reparations; (c) The candidates presented by YATAMA to participate in the 2000 municipal elections on the Atlantic Coast were selected by the communities; when they were not allowed to take part in this process, “they felt discredited n the eyes of their communities”; (d) The exclusion of the YATAMA candidates from the municipal elections of November 2000 “also affected the members of the different indigenous people [...] and demoralized the entire society of the Atlantic Coast”; and (e) The State caused “individual non-pecuniary harm with a collective impact,” which the Court should consider in order to “repair it, adapting the payment to the principle of equity.” The right of the indigenous electorate to vote and freely elect candidates that represented their communities was violated. 240. Arguments of the representatives of the victims (a) With regard to indirect damage: (i) Both the candidates of YATAMA for the elections of November 2000 and the communities incurred expenses required to participate in the elections;