that “the permanent quest to obtain rehabilitation for his son Sebastián, his insistent recourse to the organs of justice and administrative mechanisms to further the different proceedings and accompany his son […] show the difficulties he faced in maintaining his income at the level [it was] prior to Sebastián’s accident.” Given “the need to devote himself exclusively to caring for his son and to the latter’s recovery, [which] necessarily involved neglecting his work activities,” the representatives requested compensation for loss of earnings of US$ 70,000 (seventy thousand United States dollars). 311. The State requested that the Court “take into account international parameters and standards set by [the Court’s] consistent case law and reject these excessive pecuniary claims.” Regarding the claims for reparation in favor of Sebastián, it argued that “[this] item was taken into account in the domestic Judgment” and that “future reparations should not be base on consequences of the accident that have already been considered by the national judicial system.” As regards Danilo Furlan, the State argued that “the amount claimed […] exceeds the amounts established by this Court’s case law” and that “not even the minimal supporting documentary or arithmetical evidence was provided to arrive at the figures indicated.” Considerations of the Court 312. As the Court has previously indicated (supra paras. 197 to 203), given the delay in the payment of compensation due to procedural delays, the Furlan family was unable to afford the necessary medical treatment that could have provided Sebastián Furlan with an improved quality of life. Expert witness Rodríguez indicated that, “if the suggested treatment had been implemented, together with sustained neuro-cognitive therapy, it is certain that, today, his functioning and quality of life would have been better.” 477 Consequently, the alleged harm in relation to loss of earnings suffered by Sebastián Furlan, stemming from his inability to hold down a stable job owing to his mental disability which was not treated adequately, bears a causal relationship to the violation of Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention, given the delays in the administrative judicial proceedings, in the execution of the judgment and the effects on his psychological well-being. 313. The equity principle has been used in this Court’s case law to quantify nonpecuniary damage,478 and pecuniary damage,479 and to establish loss of earnings. 480 However, the use of this principle does not mean that the Court can act in a discretionary manner when establishing the compensatory amounts. 481 It is up to the parties to clearly prove the harm suffered as well as the specific relationship of the pecuniary claim to the facts of the case and the alleged violations. 314. Therefore, given the causal relationship between the violations found and the damage alleged, and the fact that the case involves a person with disability, the Court, having regard to the circumstances of this case, establishes in equity, the sum of US$ 477 Cf. Affidavit rendered by Dr. Estela del Carmen Rodríguez on February 10, 2012 (Merits file, volume II, page 763). 478 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 27 and Case of the Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 314. 479 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No, para. 50 and Case of the Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 314. 480 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, para. 50 and Case of the Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 314. 481 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs, para. 87, and Case of the Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 314. 98