12 States dollars) during three years, plus US$ 710,000.00 (seven hundred and ten thousand United States dollars) for the embargo on his property. This property consisted of a residence and a chalet in an exclusive zone of Lima, an apartment in the best commercial zone of this city and a parking space, the overall commercial value of which amounts to US$ 900,000.00 (nine hundred thousand United States dollars) approximately; and g) US$ 67,316.48 (sixty-seven thousand three hundred and sixteen United States dollars and forty-eight cents) for additional damage because, owing to the embargoes ordered on his assets, the company went into arrears in its payments to the Superintendency of Tax Administration, so that this institution withdrew the benefit of the special system of fractioning tax payments. 44. The Commission considered that Peru should make reparation to Mr. Cesti for the damage of an irreversible nature that he suffered as a result of the violation of his rights, by paying an adequate indemnity. In this respect, the Commission requested the Court to compensate the victim for loss of earnings, consisting in the remuneration that he ceased to receive as an officer of the company, from the time of his detention and until his effective reincorporation; for the earnings that he had ceased to receive as a “shareholder” of the company, due to the termination of activities; and for the income and interest that he had ceased to receive because he could not dispose of his property owing to the embargo on his assets. The Commission also requested the Court to order compensation for the consequential damage resulting from the fact that he could not dispose of his embargoed assets and for the expenses in order to reinstate Top Security in its previous position. The Commission cited the estimates and amounts that the victim had requested and also the evidence that he had submitted. 45. Finally, Peru declared that the claims for pecuniary damage were not in order because: a) the fact that Mr. Cesti was absent from the administration of the company could not result in pecuniary damage, as a direct consequence, since the company could have continued offering its services with another legal representative and even with Mr. Cesti’s participation and advice; b) the company’s financial statements did not show that it had an annual income of US$ 2,000,000.00 (two million United States dollars); c) the amount requested to compensate the expense of providing security to Mr. Cesti’s family and assets was not included in the judgment on merits, and it had not been requested in the domestic jurisdiction; d) the expenses occasioned by the announcements were made “motu proprio”; publication of newspaper e) the level of trust that a company attains is a result of the importance of the body corporate, unrelated to those who are on the board of directors, and the “Mi Seguro” program could have continued, so that its suspension did not constitute consequential damage;