- 99 deal of anguish, anxiety, depression; [he] had to seek medical help in order to overcome the situation.” His children indicated that their parents suffered “significant stigmatization”; the media coverage caused them great frustration and they were “moody.” They also indicated that their parents suffered “a great deal of emotional insecurity owing to their stigmatization, and even owing to the risk to their physical integrity that they felt on more than one occasion, and of the uncertainty owing to the arbitrary decisions of the authorities. Permanent helplessness was one of the strongest feelings they experienced.” 323. Ramón Barrios Maldonado stated that, the fact that he had been dismissed and, at the same time, remained in his post awaiting his substitute, “affected [him] morally, and diminished [his] professional capability to execute [his] work as a judge.” He also indicated that the proceeding affected both him and his family emotionally owing to the uncertainty of not knowing his fate. As a result of the proceeding, he “was stigmatized before society as a rebel judge, a communist and a Zelayist.” Throughout the proceedings he was also “emotionally destroyed and professionally diminished.” Moreover, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha stated that he “could see the frustration [of Ramón Barrios,] but what he saw most was the emotional confusion caused by having been dismissed and having to wait a long time for his substitute to arrive, which, according to him, […] kept him in uncertainty, and [in a state of] emotional frustration.” 324. In addition, expert witness María Sol Yáñez determined that the four victims “have been deeply hurt, because the dismissal that was perceived as unjust has affected something as vital as their identity.” The expert witness indicated that they experienced great mental suffering, and constraints to being able to carry on with their life project. She concluded that various factors have contributed to the continuation of the pain and the prolonged emotional impact on the victims, namely: the impact of the traumatic loss of their jobs; the climate of fear and vulnerability created by the polarization; the lack of social validation of their pain; the absence of institutional and social support; the stigmatization and the moral harm; the lack of resources for their living expenses owing to their dismissal; the contempt for their dignity and the questioning of their search for justice, and their concerns with regard to the life projects of their children. 325. Taking into account the statements described above, the Court finds that the disciplinary proceedings and the termination of their functions caused moral harm to the victims in this case. Consequently, and based on the circumstances of the case and the violations declared, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in fairness, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) each for non-pecuniary damage for Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Chévez de la Rocha, Ramón Barrios Maldonado and Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza. E. Costs and expenses 326. The representatives alleged that the victims incurred diverse expenses throughout the disciplinary proceedings,472 which were estimated at US$2,109.36. However, they indicated that the victims had not kept the receipts for the expenses incurred, and therefore requested that the Court establish an amount based on fairness. 327. Regarding the costs and expenses incurred by the AJD, they alleged that the latter had various expenses as a result of the 2010 hunger strike in which Judges López Lone and Chévez de la Rocha took part. They also indicated that they had to cover the cost of the travel expenses of Ms. Flores Lanza in a trip to Spain “to make visits and have meetings with authorities and organizations relating to the dismissal of the victims.”473 In addition, they indicated that, during the litigation 472 They indicated that they had to travel from San Pedro Sula to Tegucigalpa several times to take part in the disciplinary proceedings. 473 Cf. Receipt for travel expenses dated May 10, 2010 (evidence file, folio 5898).