a) Regarding Mr. Cuya: (i) Consequential damage should not include expenses incurred to support the family that are not part of the case. In addition, it pointed out that no receipts have been provided for the expenses incurred. Furthermore, it alleged that it will refer to matters related to the expenses of lawyers' services in the costs and expenses section, and (ii) Loss of earnings: the employment relationship is based on the contract with reciprocal benefits, so there is no remuneration for work not performed. 181 In addition, it stated that the alleged victim's request is based on an assumption, since it cannot be assured that Mr. Cuya Lavy would have continued working as a magistrate from November 2002 onwards. b) Regarding Mr. Valenzuela: 182 Loss of earnings: in addition to the arguments presented in the case of Mr. Cuya Lavy, it stated the need to consider that there have been variations in the salary scale of the positions and that “his generic statements do not allow us to clearly establish” if that amount corresponded to him. c) Regarding Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse: Loss of earnings: it opposes the sum required, since the continuity in their work as Assistant Prosecutors was a possibility, not a proven fact, since the evaluation and ratification were carried out periodically and there was no certainty that they would always be ratified. In addition, it considered that no payment was due for work not performed. 211. In its case law the Court has established that pecuniary damage involves the loss or detriment of the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the events and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal link with the facts of the case. 183 212. This Court notes that Mr. Cuya Lavy’s representatives, in substantiating their claim regarding the compensation for loss of earnings corresponding to the period from November 21, 2002 to January 31, 2020, provided a document called “Expert Report”, which contains an expert accounting opinion to determine the loss of earnings with respect to the remuneration not received by Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy as a Specialized Civil Judge of the Supreme Court of Northern Lima, signed on February 9, 2020 by a certified public accountant, which contains identical data to those requested by Mr. Cuya. For the corresponding calculation, it took into account different items, including monthly remuneration, composition of remuneration, the bonus for jurisdictional function and operating expenses according to the current jurisdiction, monthly remuneration received at the time of termination, increases in remuneration, National Holidays and Christmas bonus. In addition, as part of the additional evidence the representatives presented several receipts of his remuneration corresponding to the payment for April 2002 and March 2002, indicating that the monthly credit was made up of the remuneration, and the jurisdictional function bonus, to which should be added operating expenses. At the same time, they submitted data extracted from the expert opinion. The State indicates that the ratification process in which Mr. Cuya participated was carried out in accordance with the regulations at the time. And that the argument of disqualification from re-entry into the Judiciary does not conform to the truth of what was argued, since the JNJ reported that Mr. Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, after his non-ratification, did not present an application within the framework of a selection and appointment process held by the former CNM. The state relies on the Constitutional Court’s case law of the time that considers that non-ratified magistrates are not prevented from applying again to the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution, and on the Resolution of July 15, 2003 binding precedent by the Constitutional Court in the Judgment of January 8, 2006, File No. 1333-2006-AA. 182 The State forwarded the evidence requested from Peru regarding Mr. Valenzuela regarding the proof of Remuneration payments - Period 2002, proof of payments of Jurisdictional Bonus, Period 2002 and proof of payments of Operating Expenses, period 2002, and clarified that the amounts were received when Mr. Valenzuela was working, which do not constitute remunerative amounts. The current basic remuneration of a regular specialized judge is S/2,0005.07, as of March 17, 2021. 183 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Garzón Guzmán v. Ecuador, supra, para. 130. 181 53