173. In the case of Mr. Vinueza Pánchez, he argued that the legal situation had an impact on his institutional, family and personal life. He alleged a loss of earnings amounting to US$390,000.00 (three hundred and ninety thousand United States dollars). He also requested US$800,000.00 (eight hundred thousand United States dollars) as full reparation.160 174. The State reiterated that it was not responsible for any pecuniary damage caused to the victims, because there had been no violation of rights that attributed international responsibility to Ecuador. Moreover, it made some observations for the Court to consider. Regarding consequential damage, it indicated: a) Regarding Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino, it considered that Mr. Villarroel had not provided evidence at the appropriate procedural moment to prove the expenses he had incurred as a result of the supposed violations of his rights. b) Regarding Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, it considered that the representative had not specified the exact nature of the consequential damage to Mr. Cevallos. In general, the representative had argued that he had to pay for his defense during the judicial proceedings, and also for the medical treatment related to mental disorders for himself and his wife. It added that, at this stage of the proceedings, it was not possible to add new victims to those named in the Merits Report. The State also repeated that Mr. Cevallos had not presented opportune evidence to prove his allegations. c) Regarding Leoncio Amilcar Ascázubi Albán, as in the preceding cases, it considered that Mr. Ascázubi had not provided evidence to prove the supposed consequential damage he suffered as a result of the expenses he incurred derived from the payment of fees to his defense counsel, experts, travel and costs related to his defense, in both the criminal proceedings, and in a complaint he filed against the State before one of the country’s courts, and also a complaint against the president of the National Police Court of Justice at the time, as well as the expenses for his wife and children to travel to his place of detention. d) Regarding Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz, it indicated that he was demanding pecuniary reparations for the expenses incurred for his legal defense for three years for which he had had to sell some moveable and immovable property. Once again, the State considered that he had not provided the pertinent evidence. e) Regarding Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor, it argued that Mr. Coloma had not specified the consequential damage he had suffered or presented any evidence in this regard. [Mr. Vinueza Pánchez] suffered the following harm: (a) to his image, honor and reputation, as well as to his mental health. Healthwise, he suffered a high level of stress and other ailments, some of which subsisted to date and, on several occasions, he was treated in the National Police Hospital; (b) owing to the court case, even though he was acquitted, he remained stigmatized or identified by members of the Institution and of his family; (c) his life project was impaired; (d) in the case of consequential damage, his salary as a member of the National Police was never sufficient; (e) payment of air fare to travel to Quito to give statements, because he served in the police force in the province of Loja; (f) owing to the situation, he took out several loans with the National Police Cooperative, and also had recourse to his family in order to have the necessary resources for the upkeep of his family and his children’s education, and (g) regarding loss of earnings, the trial caused him important financial harm; he was reinstated in active duty and in his previous rank in the Institution and he resorted to the Council of Generals of the National Police, who awarded the annual performance notes; however, owing to his legal situation, he was given low notes for the three years that the trial lasted and those notes had an adverse impact on him, because he needed the note to request promotion to the next rank, namely Police Colonel. He was promoted on July 17, 2006, two years after his peers. In addition, due to that situation, promotion to General was almost impossible because, by law, he had to leave the institution and accept reserve retirement, with a colonel’s pension, and with 32 years, 6 months and 13 days service. If he had been promoted to General, he would have served longer and, consequently, his severance payment would have been greater. The aspiration of any officer of the National Police was to achieve the highest rank, namely Senior General; otherwise, great frustration was felt. The fact that he had to leave the institution while a Colonel prejudiced him greatly because his pension was lower than that of an Inspector or of a Senior General. 160 43