indemnity for the periods from August 22, 1998 to February 1999 and December 2003 to May 29, 2015. She also stated that she reviewed public legal documents and all the documentation related to the corresponding claim, in order to substantiate the aforementioned amount. 656 489. The Court recalls that the expert opinions aimed at quantifying the scope of the damage caused by the violation of human rights must contain logical arguments that allow this Court to understand and assess them with the rest of the evidence, in accordance with the rules of sound judgment. This is particularly necessary with regard to expert appraisals based on technical expertise unrelated to that of the Court, 657 as in the present case. 490. The Court previously declared the violation (supra para. 369) of Articles 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) of the Convention to the detriment of Jorge Martínez Meléndez, considering that the extension of his pretrial detention from June 3, 2006 until July 17, 2007- the date on which he was convicted of 12 crimes of embezzlement – was arbitrary and unlawful. In this regard, the Court considers it pertinent to award an amount for the financial losses suffered by Mr. Martínez during the 13 months and 14 days of his pretrial detention. However, the Court observes that the aforementioned expert did not attach to her opinion the accounting records or supporting evidence necessary to justify the amounts of income that she calculated. Thus, in the absence of sufficient evidence to calculate the victim’s monthly income, the Court, given the particularities of the case, decides to set a reasonable amount of USD $5,000.00 for the pecuniary damage caused between June 3, 2006, and July 17, 2007. E. Costs and Expenses E.1.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 491. The common interveners Factum Consorcio requested payment for costs and expenses generated in the domestic judicial proceedings and in the proceedings before the inter-American system. In their final written arguments, the representatives stated that: the fees for professional representation of Mr. Adrián Martínez Blanco amounted to USD $12,000.00; the travel expenses of Martínez Blanco from Buenos Aires, Argentina to San José on August 12, 2017, totaled USD $2,161.40, and the fees for legal representation of Néstor Morera Víquez, totaled USD $8,000.00. 492. For their part, the common interveners SIPHD, in their pleadings and motions brief related to Groups 3, 7 and 8, requested the payment of legal fees and reimbursement of costs incurred in processing the case both in the domestic courts and in the international jurisdiction. However, they did not indicate a specific amount for costs and expenses. 493. The State requested that the Court reject all claims for reparation made by the alleged victims, including the payment of costs and of expenses. E.1.2. Considerations of the Court 656 Affidavit of Guiselle Chacón Araya (evidence file, folios 44464 and 44465). In his statement before a notary public Mr. Martínez Meléndez stated that “[d]uring all this time I suffered financial losses, I lost my office, my professional practice company which I had opened in the early 1980s, it simply collapsed and was closed, and my clientele dispersed so I could not generate income, and all my savings were spent.” Cf. Affidavit of Jorge Martínez Meléndez (evidence file, folio 44450). 657 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 230, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011 Series C No. 223, para. 100. 145