32 Ministry of Health. Hence, she was not left destitute. It could not be inferred, the State maintained, that had the victim not been detained, she would have continued to work at the same educational institutions where she was teaching at the time of her detention; b) US$13,912.56 (thirteen thousand nine hundred twelve United States dollars and fifty-six cents) for groceries; c) US$3,864.60 (three thousand eight hundred sixty-four United States dollars and sixty cents) for articles of personal hygiene; d) US$3,508.92 (three thousand five hundred eight United States dollars and ninety-two cents) for materials for making handmade goods; e) US$1,140.00 (one thousand one hundred forty United States dollars) for purchase of medications; f) US$3,168.00 (three thousand one hundred sixty-eight United States dollars) for wearing apparel and shoes; g) S/2,500 (two thousand five hundred soles) in travel expenses incurred by next of kin to visit her at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison to take groceries and other supplies to the victim; h) S/23,158.30 (twenty-three thousand one hundred fifty-eight and thirty/one hundredths soles) for the medical and educational expenses of Paul Abelardo and Gisselle Elena Zambrano-Loayza, expenses that were paid by Olga Adelina and Carolina Loayza-Tamayo. The State argued that education was a parental obligation and the amount spent on a child’s education was for the parents to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code and the Child and Adolescent Code. The State, therefore, was not obligated to pay those expenses. It added that under the Civil Code and the Child and Adolescent Code, in the absence of the parents it was the duty of the children’s grandparents, uncles and aunts to see to their education. i) US$12,000.00 (twelve thousand United States dollars) for the income that Ms. Carolina Loayza-Tamayo ceased to receive when she undertook the victim’s defense and resigned her position at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Moreover, both the victim and the Commission petitioned the Court to instruct the State to pay certain estimated amounts for the following items: j) A prudent amount for “lost earnings” and expenses incurred by the victim’s next of kin to visit her at the prison; k) A prudent amount for “lost earnings” and expenses incurred by her sister and attorney to visit the victim at the prison for the duration of her detention (some two hundred visits); and