65 B) PECUNIARY DAMAGE Arguments of the Commission 147. The Commission indicated that the victim would specify her claims regarding compensation for pecuniary damage. Arguments of the victim’s representatives 148. The victim’s representatives asked for the following elements to be taken into account when determining compensation for pecuniary damage: a) In relation to the loss of earnings: when she was detained the victim worked as a pediatrician. She earned US$500.00 (five hundred United States dollars) a month, which has increased over time to an amount equivalent to $550.00 (five hundred and fifty United States dollars). This remuneration, which she failed to received during the seven years she was deprived of her liberty, amounts to US$39,050.00 (thirty-nine thousand and fifty United States dollars), calculated on the basis of 12 salaries a year, in accordance with Peruvian legislation; and b) In relation to indirect damage, the monthly expenses of the victim during her imprisonment for the acquisition of food and other personal expenses should be included, as well as the transport expenses incurred by her next of kin when they visited her in prison. In particular, Alcira Isabel De La Cruz Flores had to assume the role of mother to the victim’s children together with her own mother, and also assume the responsibility for the alleged victim’s defense, and she had to give up the possibility of continuing her academic professional training. Arguments of the State 149. The State did not refer to the claims of the victim’s representatives regarding possible reparations for pecuniary damage. Considerations of the Court 150. The Court will determine the pecuniary damage arising from the loss of or deterioration in the victim’s income and the expenditure incurred by the next of kin as a result of the facts,124 and will establish a compensatory amount that seeks to repair the patrimonial consequences of the violations committed. To decide this, the Court will take into account the body of evidence in this case, its own case law, and the arguments of the victim’s representatives. a) Loss of income 151. The Court considers it has been proved that María Teresa De La Cruz Flores was a physician by profession and, at the time of her detention, she worked as a pediatrician in the Chincha Polyclinic in Lima (supra para. 73(6)). 124 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 234; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 283; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 201.