34 a) The material damages were those corresponding to the consequences of the “loss that Mr. Cantos sustained when he did not win pecuniary damages for the alleged violations of the right to due process, the right to judicial protection and, both as a consequence of and by reason of the circumstances of the case, the right to property. They also pointed out that their client “will leave the amount of the material damages entirely to the Court’s judgment, based on equity considerations.” The representatives alleged that the material damages that Mr. Cantos sustained were a consequence of “the arbitrary judgment [of the Supreme Court of Justice in 1986, which] stripped him of […] his right to bring an action.” They argued that the right to bring a civil action is different from the right to a fair trial in that a civil action can be measured by a sum of money and can even be foregone. The representatives also pointed out that the 1982 agreement “set very clear guidelines as to the amounts in question”, which was itself a public official’s acknowledgment of the losses that Mr. Cantos had sustained. b) On the subject of nonmaterial damages, they pointed out that Mr. Cantos had been the target of repeated instances of “judicial and police persecution” that fall within the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. They also pointed out that in persecution cases of this kind, nonmaterial damages need not be proved because they are a consequence of human nature. They cited the Court’s own case law to support their argument. The representatives also pointed out that Mr. Cantos had not received any compensation in Argentina for these damages. They observed that Mr. Cantos has been “deprived of the right to a family life plan.” Given all these factors, the representatives of the alleged victim estimated nonmaterial damages at US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars). c) Concerning other forms of reparation, they petitioned the Court to order the State to nullify all after-effects of the domestic proceedings. Specifically, they asked that the attachments and general property encumbrances be lifted and, consequently, that all personal information on Mr. Cantos on file with the corresponding public agencies be expunged so that “no inaccurate or offending information” should attach to the good name and honor of Mr. José María Cantos. d) As for costs and expenses, during the public hearing reference was made to four trips made in connection with the case, for which records were attached to the brief of reparations submitted. They estimated that the expenses incurred with these trips totaled US$17,000.00 (seventeen thousand United States dollars) and petitioned the Court to set their fees based on equity considerations. e) As for the manner of compliance, the victim’s representatives requested that the State be ordered to make any payment exempt from existing or future taxes. They again expressly petitioned the Court not to send the case back to the domestic courts to determine the damages owed, as the case could end up going directly to the Supreme Court through the per saltum system. As for the time period for compliance, the representatives asked the Court to order the State