arguments, the State reiterated that “since the State is not internationally responsible for the alleged disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, it is not required to provide reparation for the presumed harm caused.” 279. Regarding the earnings that Jeremías Osorio Rivera failed to receive, the representatives made the respective calculation on the basis of the minimum living wage which, up until 2012, would represent the sum of US$42,237.58 using the exchange rate of 2.60. From this amount, 25% was subtracted for personal expenses and, then, annual interest of 6% of the loss of earnings was applied from 2012, until 2022, the date on which the life expectancy of Mr. Osorio Rivera would culminate. 280. The Court considers, as it has in other cases of enforced disappearance, 398 that, in this case in which the victim’s whereabouts are unknown, it is possible to apply criteria of compensation for his loss of earnings consisting of the income he would have received during his probable lifetime. Taking into account the victim’s age at the time of his disappearance, the evidence in the file, and based on criteria of equity, the Court decides to establish the sum of US$57,500.00 (fifty-seven thousand five hundred United States dollars) for the loss of earnings of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Half this amount must be delivered to Santa Fe Gaitán Calderón, and the other half must be distributed in equal shares among the children of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, namely: Edith Laritza Osorio Gaytán, Neida Rocío Osorio Gaitán, Vannesa Judith Osorio Gaitán and Jersy Jeremías Osorio Gaitán. b) Consequential damage 281. The representatives indicated that, since the expenses they have incurred were disbursed over almost 21 years, the family members have not kept the corresponding vouchers. The representatives therefore asked the Court to establish, in equity, the amount that the State should pay to reimburse the expenses incurred. 282. The State affirmed that none of the rights recognized in the American Convention had been violated and indicated its profound disagreement with the large sums requested by the representatives arguing that, “[t]his type of claim seeks to convert the […] Court into a financial entity, which is not in keeping with the object and purpose of its functions.” In its final written arguments, the State reiterated that “since the State is not internationally responsible for the alleged disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, it is not required to provide reparation for the presumed harm caused.” 283. In order to discover the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Osorio Rivera, his family took numerous steps before the State authorities; in particular they visited courts, police stations and detention centers. The Court finds that the State should compensate them for these expenses, because they have a direct causal nexus with the violations in this case. 399 The Court observes that the file does not contain any appropriate vouchers to determine the precise amount of the expenditure that the said steps must have represented for the members of Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s family. However, based on the specific circumstances of the case, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, in equity, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars), as 398 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 46 and 47, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 269. 399 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 76, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 215. 93