26 his impossibility to publish the book due to the historical context then prevailing in Argentina, and the professional limitations brought about by the restrictions that applied for him to leave the country.” On this account, they are seeking compensation set on equitable grounds in the sum of US$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars). 108. The State only addressed the subject of “loss of profits.” It noted that, “other than their statements, [the representatives] failed to provide concrete documentary evidence” and requested that the Court “resort to the concept of equity to determine reparation on that account.” 109. As regards the expenses incurred in connection with the 16 years of litigation before domestic and international courts and the “dissemination” of the matter, the Court notes that, in certain cases,80 it ordered payment of compensation for the expenses incurred by either the victims or their next of kin as a result of the declared violations, provided, however, that a direct causal link exists between such expenses and the facts that entail such violations, and that the expenses are not disbursements made to access justice, as these are accounted for as “reimbursement of costs and expenses,” rather than “compensation.” In the instant case, the aforementioned expenses were incurred to access justice and, accordingly, they will be analyzed in section D) of this Judgment. 110. As regards Mr. Kimel’s impossibility to move forward with new work proposals and projects and the alleged impairment of his professional career, the Court takes into consideration that the State has not objected to such arguments and has even requested the Court that it set compensation therefor on equitable grounds. Accordingly, the Court has decided to set in equity the sum of US$ 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) as compensation for pecuniary damage. This sum shall be delivered directly to Mr. Kimel within one year as from the date of notice of this Judgment. b) Non-pecuniary damage 111. The Court will now rule on non-pecuniary damage in accordance with the standards laid down in the Court’s case law.81 112. The Commission stated that “[t]he infliction of moral damage in these cases is a necessary result of the nature of the violations that were committed.” 113. The representatives argued that “the condemnatory judgments brought the serious nature and quality of the investigation undertaken by Mr. Eduardo Kimel into question,” that the Argentine courts held it negligent and reckless, that the fine he was sentenced to pay “was a reason for great concern and seriously jeopardized the financial stability of his family group,” and that the possibility that he were deprived of his liberty caused “a great deal of suffering and instability” to himself and his family. On this account, they requested compensation in the amount of US$ 50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars). 114. The State did not submit arguments on the subject of non-pecuniary damage. 80 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 152; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra note 45, para. 194, Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 427, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 11, para 251. 81 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et a. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 52; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 295; Case of ZambranoVélez et al., supra note 10, para. 141; and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz, supra note 15, para. 175.