hundred forty-three thousand eight hundred sixty-two dollars and fifty-two cents); 153 (b) the bail payment of USD 1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred dollars); and (c) the estimated amount paid for food at the air base where he was detained, USD 326.10 (three hundred twenty-six dollars and ten cents); 2. Pay as compensation for “harm to life plans” USD 800,000.00 (eight hundred thousand dollars), an estimate they argue is justified because when “a person has been investigated and prosecuted unjustly, it is very difficult to return to normal life,” and in this case, the events hindered Mr. Cortez from “finding new work” and affected both him and his family; 3. Pay USD 1,500,000.00 (one million five hundred thousand dollars) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr. Cortez and his family due to his treatment as a “delinquent” and “inhuman punishment,” as well as his inability to find work. 154 180. The State opposed the pecuniary measures sought, arguing that: 1. In general terms, prosecution alone cannot produce a right to reparation; 2. The amount claimed for pecuniary damage is not appropriate because: (a) it is not appropriate to compensate Mr. Cortez for income lost due to the alleged loss of his job, as the representatives have not proven that he was dismissed, and even if they had, a causal relationship with state actions has not been proven, 155 and furthermore, because the victim continued to work after his separation from the Ícaro company, granting the representatives’ request would result in undue enrichment; (b) the bail amount was returned; and (c) the alleged payments of Mr. Cortez for food when he was deprived of liberty in military installations have not been documented; 3. The harm to life plans cannot be taken into consideration because in order to do so, greater harm would need to be demonstrated than simply a reduction in work prospects, and even taking this into account, Mr. Cortez worked at different companies after the events of the case; 156 and 4. The amount claimed for non-pecuniary damage is “clearly excessive.” 181. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept that pecuniary damage “presumes loss or harm to the victims’ earnings, expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a relation of cause and effect with the facts of the case sub judice.” 157 The Court has also indicated that non-pecuniary damage may include both the suffering and affliction caused by the violation and also the impairment of values of great significance to the individuals, as well as any alteration of a non-pecuniary character in the living conditions of the victims. In addition, since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary value to non-pecuniary damage, it can only be compensated, for the purposes of comprehensive reparation to the victims, by the payment of a sum of money or 153 The representatives arrived at this sum by (1) assuming that if it were not for the events of the case, Mr. Cortez would have continued working at that company, which closed in 2011, and (2) taking into account the income he would have earned and the “commitment of [the] employer” of Mr. Cortez to pay him at least triple the salary of a second sergeant. 154 In making these arguments, in the section on reparations in the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives stated that Mr. Cortez’s “right to honor and his good name” had been harmed. However, as an argument on the merits, they did not make reference to this right or to Article 11 of the Convention, which recognizes the right to the protection of honor and dignity. 155 Ecuador also argued that, even if a causal relationship were proven, it would still not be logical to assume that Mr. Cortez would have stayed at the same company for 14 years because many workers lost their jobs due to a national economic crisis that began in 1998. Moreover, Ecuador maintained that because there is no record of the alleged commitment by Mr. Cortez’s employer at the Ícaro company to pay him a salary three times that of a second sergeant, that cannot be taken into consideration. 156 Ecuador stated that Mr. Cortez’s contributions to the Ecuadorian Institute of Social Security show that he continued to work. The State specified three companies where it says Mr. Cortez worked: Grupo Octagon, Sistemas de escape Masterax, and Imporfamily. 157 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, para. 123. 39