38 chapter related to the costs and expenses of the Judgment and not in the present section which is related to the pecuniary damages.119 137. As to the request for compensation on account of the loss of the communal store, the Court has not ruled over these facts; consequently, it will not determine a compensation for such concept. 138. Having analyzed the information received by the parties, the facts of the case, and its case law,120 the Court observes that despite that the receipts of expenses submitted were not sufficient, it can be assumed that the victim’s next of kin of the incurred in different expenses due to the death of the victim and the consequences they suffered after the illegal detention and extrajudicial death of Mr. Escué Zapata. 139. Furthermore, in consideration of the evidence furnished, the Court takes into account that the victim’s parents had to bear the majority of the expenses. The victim's mother declared before the Tribunal that the trips she made in the search for justice or even to collect the mortal rests of his son had to do it "by not feeling hungry.”121 In addition, the Tribunal emphasizes the financial difficulties the victim's companion had to face all alone with her daughter, and the fact that she had to bear all the expenses that were once shared with his companion.122 Moreover, as Myriam Zapata Escué stated before the Tribunal, she and her mother had to bear the medical expenses she needed for the physical discomfort she felt and keep felling, such as headaches and dizziness.123 140. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers it appropriate to set, in equity, the amount of US$ 7.000 (seven thousand United States dollars) as compensation for the concept of pecuniary damages, for the parents and siblings of Germán Escué Zapata. Said amount will be delivered to Mrs. Etelvina Escué Zapata so that she, according to her criterion, usages and customs, distributes the sum of money among her husband and children. Furthermore, the Court set, in equity, the amount of US$ 5.000 (five thousand United States dollars) for the permanent companion of the victim and their daughter as compensation for the concept of pecuniary damage. Such amount shall be equally divided between both beneficiaries. 141. This Court finds that the award for lost income includes income that the victim would have received during his or her remaining life expectancy. That amount, therefore, is considered the property of the deceased victim, but is delivered to his or her next of kin.124 142. The representatives requested the amount of US$ 16.354,08 (sixteen thousand three hundred fifty-four United States dollars and eight cents) for the loss of income corresponding to Germán Escué for his position of Cabildo Governor. The State requested 119 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, supra, note 20 para. 152; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 193 and 194, and Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 194. 120 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C Nº. 149, para. 226, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 251; and Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 105, para. 177. 121 Cf. Statement rendered by Etelvina Zapata in the public hearing held before the Court on January 29 and 30, 2007. 122 Cf. Statement rendered by Bertha Escué Coicue on January 16, 2007 (record of the Merits, Volume III, page 607) and statement rendered by Etelvina Zapata in the public hearing held before the Court on January 29 and 30, 2007. 123 Cf. Statement rendered by Myriam Zapata Escué in the public hearing held before the Court on January 29 and 30, 2007. 124 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 246.