f) Regarding Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez, it indicated that he had incurred expenses for his defense counsel during the proceedings, which had cost him more that he had expected because, at a certain moment, he had to substitute the initial defense counsel because he was not being defended satisfactorily. In addition, he had to pay for travel and maintenance costs during his detention. The State considered that he had not provided sufficient evidence with regard to consequential damage; he had failed to provide invoices or vouchers proving the alleged expenses. 175. Regarding loss of earnings, in the case of all the victims, the State argued the impossibility of assessing the compensation objectively, because the items were based on hypothetical or possible situations. In all cases, the State indicated the payments received by the victims based on their life pension due to retirement, which included coverage for illness or maternity, and an elective life insurance.161 Those payments exceeded the current general minimum living wage in the country which was US$400.00 (four hundred United States dollars). D.1 Pecuniary damage 176. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept that pecuniary damage supposes the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victims, the expenses incurred owing to the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case. 162 177. Regarding pecuniary damage, the representative failed to present vouchers relating to the expenses incurred by the victims under the heading of consequential damage. Also, in the case of loss of earnings, he failed to present reliable documentation that would have allowed the Court to make an exact assessment of the situation of each victim. 178. The State and the representative advised that, during their detention and the proceedings, Messrs. Villarroel Merino and Cevallos Moreno were in reserve retirement. In this regard, the representative indicated that, according to the Law on National Police Personnel, “they had already met the requirements of rank and time within the Institution and were beneficiaries of the right established in the Social Security Law of the National Police.” 179. The State and the representative also reported that Messrs. López Ortiz, Coloma Gaibor, Ascázubi Albán and Vinueza Pánchez were on active duty at the time of the facts and continued to receive their remunerations; after they had been acquitted they were reincorporated into active service. The representative added that, according “to art[icle] 60 of the Law of Police Personnel in force at the time of the criminal proceedings, members of the police who were placed in a provisional situation did not lose the rights established for active members of the institution; consequently, they enjoyed the benefits of remuneration and job security while the [trial] had not been decided against the defendant.” Lastly, the representative indicated that none of the victims had received any type of remuneration, compensation, proportionate payments or other benefits other than those established in the law on the retirement pension that had been cited. Mr. López Ortiz received his pension based on the rank of District General starting on June 9, 2006. Mr. Villarroel Merino received his pension based on the rank of Senior General Superior starting on January 30, 2000. Mr. Cevallos Moreno received his pension based on the rank of General Inspector starting on October 12, 2001. Mr. Ascázubi Albán received his pension based on the rank of District General starting on June 9, 2006. Mr. Coloma Gaibor received his pension based on the rank of Police Staff Colonel starting on August 29, 2009. Mr. Vinueza Pánchez received his pension based on the rank of Police Staff Colonel starting on July 14, 2010. 161 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 185. 162 44