professional activities. In addition, he no longer received the monthly sum of US$ 774.95 for his work as a columnist. 214. In relation to Mr. Álvarez’s work as an author of books, his publications were also affected because he was unable to travel abroad to meet with his editors, and was unable to travel to Mexico, Germany, Colombia and Argentina. The representatives argued that, considering the journeys that he was unable to make due to the ban on leaving the country, the respective damages are calculated in the amount of US $ 40,000.00 for loss of earnings, plus the cost of the airline ticket issued on November 22, 2005, for the sum of US $ 849.00. 215. Subsequently, Criteria Editorial, the Venezuelan publishers of Mr. Tulio Álvarez’s books, having waited for a long period for the lifting of the measure, proposed the cancellation of the contract they had signed and the imposition of 50% of Bs. 58,800,000 corresponding to copyright for sales in Venezuela which, according to the official rate of exchange at that time, was equivalent to approximately US $27,348.00. 216. The State rejected these reparations and argued that the amounts requested for pecuniary damage are far removed from the jurisprudence established for such purposes by the Court. 217. In its jurisprudence, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage190 and established criteria for appropriate compensation. In particular, it has established that pecuniary damage “involves the loss of or detriment to the victim’s income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case. Accordingly, the Court will determine whether it is appropriate to grant pecuniary compensation and the respective amounts due in this case.” 218. In this regard, the Court does not find a sufficient connection between Mr. Álvarez’s supposed trips abroad and the damages stemming from the violations established in this judgment. Although in Chapter VIII it was determined that the measure barring him from leaving the country was not justified, based on the evidence provided in the case file there are no facts to suggest that Mr. Álvarez was prevented from traveling abroad by a court ruling. On the contrary, it was proven that his requests to leave the country were approved, with the exception of a request to travel to Mexico, submitted less than 48 hours before the flight (supra para. 60). Furthermore, from the case file it is not clear how the foreign travel ban could have affected the publication abroad of his books entitled “Cómo Hacer Infinitamente Feliz a la Mujer” and “Mujeres Pérfidas”, or how his non-attendance at a book fair could cause the special damages alleged by the victim. The same applies to the request for compensation for loss of professional fees for consultancies abroad. A propos, the Court considers that the measure restricting his travel abroad did not prevent him from leaving the country, but rather conditioned it to prior authorization by a judge. Mr. Álvarez traveled abroad on three occasions, duly authorized by the Venezuelan courts. 219. However, it is evident that the criminal trial and the limitations inherent to the exercise of the State’s punitive power did have an impact on Mr. Álvarez’ possibilities of continuing to publish columns and exercise his freedom of expression. Therefore, the Court decides to establish in equity, the sum of US $10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) as compensation for pecuniary damages in favor of Mr. Tulio Álvarez Ramos. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002, Series C No. 91, para. 43; and Case Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017, Series C, No. 331, para. 212. 190 41