c) Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz 170. For Mr. López Ortiz, based on the violated rights, he requested at least US$1,000,000.00 (one million United States dollars) for full reparation.157 d) Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor 171. For Mr. Coloma Gaibor, he requested US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars) for consequential damage, corresponding to the value of a building that he disposed of to cover the expenses relating to the trial and his detention, and US$300,000.00 (three hundred thousand United States dollars) for loss of earnings. He also requested US$950,000.00 (nine hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.158 e) Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán 172. For Mr. Ascázubi Albán, based on his person and professional situation and the consequences of the violation of his human rights, he requested US$800,000.00 (eight hundred thousand United States dollars) for the financial harm caused.159 f) Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez the facts objectively, he was the object of “public contempt,” and the public was made aware of the issue by the launch of a smear campaign. This situation hindered his personal, professional and political development because he had occupied important positions with great responsibility, including president of the Pichincha Professional Football Association (AFNA), and member of the Criminal Court for Officers and Rank and File; he had represented his country as Ecuadorian Police Attaché in the Republic of Colombia; he was a member of the National Security Council (COSENA); he had helped create the Social Security Institute of the National Police (ISSPOL), and received various decorations for his years of service and for actions undertaken, and he had obtained a doctorate in industrial psychology at the Universidad Central del Ecuador as preparation to provide for his financial needs when he left the police institution; he had also assisted several countries in their efforts to combat drug-trafficking, money-laundering, etc. and had attended many courses and seminars, and (c) owing to the emotional disorders suffered, which still continue, he has had significant medical expenses. He argued that: (a) [Mr. López Ortiz] was unable to discharge the duties of General for four years, District General for two years, and General Inspector for two years; also two years as Senior General should be taken into account because anyone who has a vocation to be a police officer aspires to reach that rank, which is the highest rank in the National Police; (b) the salaries and benefits for all that time (six years); (c) severance pay that varied based on years of service; (d) the retirement pension that lasted while the titleholder or his wife was alive, which was less than that of his colleagues who were generals; (e) the impossibility of obtaining work owing to the public contempt that he suffered in the media, and within and outside the institution; (f) the legal and judicial defense for the three years that the criminal proceedings lasted; (g) the untold physical, mental and psychological stress, especially when the police jurisdiction was subject to external influences against the defendants, as had been shown; (h) the sale of movable and immovable property to meet expenses related to the trial, and (i) the stress caused by the criminal proceedings and by the three years that the trial lasted, from 2002 to 2005; proceedings that began in 2001 in the Comptroller’s Office and lasted until November 2018; that is, 17 years. 157 He argued that: (a) [Mr. Coloma Gaibor] had not received reparation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage; (b) he had been subjected to “public contempt” in violation of his honor, dignity and reputation; (c) the proceedings filed against him had been traumatic and he continued to suffer mental stress that causes him to have constant psychological disorders and depression, and had affected his life and his family; (d) his health had been impaired by his detention and he had been admitted to the National Police Hospital for respiratory disorders; (e) he had received decorations and awards for his performance; however, the criminal proceedings against him meant that he received low marks in the process of promotion to the rank of general, so that his legitimate expectation to rise to the highest rank of the National Police was cut short, and (f) this had an impact on his remuneration over the four years he would have held the rank of general on active duty, and on the respective active duty pension. 158 He argued: (a) [in the case of Mr. Ascázubi Albán] loss of better severance pay owing to his early departure from the institution; (b) loss of promotion from District General to General Inspector; (c) loss of option of promotion from General Inspector to Commander General; (d) loss of employment opportunities owing to the media coverage of the case; (e) loss of the opportunity to travel as Police Attaché, and (f) expenses for his family members to travel to his place of detention located approximately 60 kilometers from Quito, either for visits or procedures ordered by the Higher Court of Police Justice. 159 42