a) “Jobs that he lost, and the business that closed,” over 10 years with a monthly income of one thousand dollars, for a total of US$120,000.00 (one hundred and twenty thousand dollars); b) “Moving, transportation, communication, and accommodation expenses, and the measures he had to take to recover his daughter,” which have required time, money, and effort, for a total of US$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars), and c) Psychological treatment, at one hundred pesos a month for 10 years, for a total of US$12,000.00 (twelve thousand dollars). 189. In addition, the representatives asked that the Court order payment of the sum of US$446,000.00 (four hundred and forty-six thousand dollars) for “expenses to be incurred” in favor of M for the following reasons and amounts: a) Housing, for a total of US$80,000.00 (eighty thousand dollars), and b) Expenditure on “physical and mental health, food, education and recreation of US$1,200.00 (one thousand and two hundred dollars) a month, until the end of her university studies, estimated to be when she is 25 years of age, for a total of US$336,000.00 (three hundred thirty-six thousand dollars). 190. The State indicated, inter alia, that "the amounts claimed […] are significantly higher than the international standards that [the] Court has established for pecuniary reparation”; that the representatives “have not used any of the parameters of reasonableness, prudence and moderation available to them to formulate a claim for compensation that would be legally viable and morally just, in accordance with the applicable international and domestic standards.” In addition, the State indicated that it was not attempting to ignore the fact that Mr. Fornerón had incurred expenses for, inter alia, moving and transportation, and the need for psychological treatment. Despite this, it underlined that it had not seen any vouchers to authenticate the said expenses. Similarly, there was no supporting documentation on the close of his business, or on the monthly income he received. Furthermore, it recalled that the State had provided material assistance to Mr. Fornerón to support the rapprochement process, ensuring him a stable job (incorporation into the permanent personnel of the Provincial Police) that guaranteed him more periods of leave and financial resources to travel to the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires to see his daughter. Regarding the observations on future expenditure in favor of M for items such as housing, and health, food and education, the State indicated that, although the main purpose of the reparations was the relationship between father and daughter, it was premature to determine the expenses that this could require, and therefore considered that, at the appropriate time, these should be established by the Court based on the equity principle. 191. Regarding the alleged loss of income claimed, the Court finds that the statements made by Gustavo Fabián Baridon, Rosa Fornerón, and Olga Acevedo authenticate that Mr. Fornerón was in charge of a business and that, owing to the facts of this case, he had to close it. 123 However, his representatives did not submit any vouchers that would prove definitively the amount requested and the loss of income claimed. Consequently, the Court decides to establish, in equity, the amount of US $45,000.00 (forty-five thousand dollars). 192. Regarding the reimbursement of expenses for psychological treatment, the Court 123 Cf. Statements of Rosa Argentina Fornerón of September 26, 2011, Olga Alicia Acevedo of October 4, 2011, and Gustavo Fabián Baridón of October 5, 2011 (merits file, tome II, folios 1046, 1140, 1134 and 1137). 50