49 order to compensate for pecuniary damages suffered, the body of evidence submitted and the arguments of the parties will be taken into account. Given the legal arguments and documentary evidence submitted to this Tribunal by the common intervener, it has not been possible to determine the existence of the required causal relationship or nexus between the pecuniary damages alleged by the common intervener with respect to the loss of burned properties or the expenses related to José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann’s health and the facts declared as violations in the present Judgment. 175. With respect to the request by the common intervener concerning the “expenses incurred by the family in order to guarantee their safety given the risk of an injury to their lives and personal integrity,” the common intervener indicated that the family has been threatened, harassed, and pursued for more than twelve years. As a result, they have been forced to contract personnel and take other security measures in their home. On this issue, the Tribunal observes that the State assigned personnel for the protection of some members of the García Prieto Giralt family as a result of the precautionary measures ordered by the Commission (supra note 9). On this issue, the Court finds that the common intervener did not submit sufficient evidence to permit the Tribunal to establish a compensation for these expenses. 176. Likewise, with respect to lost wages, the common intervener maintained that members of the García Prieto Giralt family have dedicated themselves as coffee producers on lands located in San Miguel, San Salvador. Due to the threats, harassment, incidents in which they were pursued, and fires on the properties where they undertook their activities, the family was forced to suspend their visits to San Miguel. As a result, their business has been paralyzed in order to avoid jeopardizing their lives. Consequently, the common intervener requested that the Court consider the loss of income within the concept of pecuniary damages, and that the Court determine an amount in equity, given the lack of documents which establish fixed amounts. 177. With respect to the common intervener’s allegation regarding the loss of income for the García Prieto Giralt family, this Court likewise finds that in the present case the common intervener did not present evidence that demonstrates that these alleged losses are a consequence of the violations found by the Court in the present Judgment. 178. As a result, the Court has not found evidence which demonstrates that José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto have suffered pecuniary damages in the present case. For that reason, the Court abstains from granting them compensations for this concept. B.2) Non-pecuniary Damages 179. It is now incumbent upon the Court to determine if other reparations should be ordered with respect to the non-pecuniary damages alleged in the present case, in accordance with the parameters established by the Court in its jurisprudence.110 110 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al., supra note 108, paras. 52, 54, 75, 77, 86 and 87; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 53 and 57; Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 10, para. 175; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 141; and Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 10, para. 147.