37 Porres Private University was a decision that only the organs of that institution could make. The State further argued that both the victim and the Commission had attributed the alleged damages caused to Ms. Loayza-Tamayo to her detention. Its contention was, however, that the State could not be held liable for those damages inasmuch as the authorities that intervened in the case in question did so in the legitimate exercise of their authority under the laws in force at that time. 146. The State’s argument that the authorities acted in the legitimate exercise of their authority is inadmissible. The Court itself has established that the acts of which Ms. Loayza-Tamayo was victim were violations of provisions of the American Convention. 147. The head of damages to a victim’s "life plan" has been examined both in recent doctrine and case law. This notion is different from the notions of special damages and loss of earnings. It is definitely not the same as the immediate and direct harm to a victim’s assets, as in the case of “indirect or consequential damages.” The concept of lost earnings refers solely to the loss of future economic earnings that can be quantified by certain measurable and objective indicators. The so-called “life plan,” deals with the full self-actualisation of the person concerned and takes account of her calling in life, her particular circumstances, her potentialities, and her ambitions, thus permitting her to set for herself, in a reasonable manner, specific goals, and to attain those goals. 148. The concept of a “life plan” is akin to the concept of personal fulfillment, which in turn is based on the options that an individual may have for leading his life and achieving the goal that he sets for himself. Strictly speaking, those options are the manifestation and guarantee of freedom. An individual can hardly be described as truly free if he does not have options to pursue in life and to carry that life to its natural conclusion. Those options, in themselves, have an important existential value. Hence, their elimination or curtailment objectively abridges freedom and constitutes the loss of a valuable asset, a loss that this Court cannot disregard. 149. In the case under study, while the outcome was neither certain nor inevitable, it was a plausible situation --not merely possible-- within the likelihood given the subject’s natural and foreseeable development, a development that was disrupted and upset by events that violated her human rights. Those events radically alter the course in which life was on, introduce new and hostile circumstances, and upset the kinds of plans and projects that a person makes based on the everyday circumstances in which one’s life unfolds and on one’s own aptitudes to carry out those plans with a likelihood of success. 150. It is reasonable to maintain, therefore, that acts that violate rights seriously obstruct and impair the accomplishment of an anticipated and expected result and thereby substantially alter the individual’s development. In other words, the damage to the "life plan", understood as an expectation that is both reasonable and attainable in practice, implies the loss or severe diminution, in a manner that is irreparable or reparable only with great difficulty, of a persons prospects of selfdevelopment. Thus, a person’s life is altered by factors that, although extraneous to him, are unfairly and arbitrarily thrust upon him, in violation of laws in effect and in a breach of the trust that the person had in government organs duty-bound to protect him and to provide him with the security needed to exercise his rights and to satisfy his legitimate interests.