47 the application, without prejudice to presenting those that explain, clarify or deny the facts mentioned in the application, or respond to the claims of the plaintiff,” as well as, exceptionally, supervening facts.210 158. Based on the above, the Court will only consider Yvon Neptune as the injured party in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. B) a) COMPENSATION Pecuniary damage 159. The Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the circumstances under which it must be compensated.211 160. In the instant case, the representative and Mr. Neptune affirmed that the latter’s wife traveled from New York to Port-au-Prince on six occasions “to take care of her husband and help him in his struggle against political persecution”; she spent around US$5,280.00 (five thousand two hundred and eighty United States dollars), considering that each trip cost approximately US$880.00 (eight hundred and eighty United States dollars).212 In addition, Mr. Neptune stated that they had to pay US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) in taxes and penalties relating to their pension plans, because they had to take money from these plans to pay the living expenses of Marie Jose Neptune, the mortgage on the house, and Mr. Neptune’s medical insurance payments, since neither of them could work.213 161. Taking into account the facts of the case and its case law, the Court observes that, even though no vouchers for these expenses were provided, it is reasonable to presume that Mr. Neptune and his wife incurred various expenses owing to his arbitrary detention. Consequently, the Court finds it pertinent to establish, based on the equity principle, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) as compensation for expenses, which must be paid to Yvon Neptune. 162. In relation to Mr. Neptune’s loss of earnings, the representative requested that, when determining reparations, the Court should take into consideration “Mr. Neptune’s inability to work during the 25 months that he was detained, as well as his inability to work for 26 additional months, owing to physical and psychological problems that can be attributed to his detention and prosecution.”214 In this regard, Mr. Neptune calculated his loss of earning based on the income he allegedly received as an architect before standing for election to the Senate of Haiti, and indicated that this was approximately US$96,000.00 (ninety-six thousand United States dollars) a year. The total amount he claims under this heading is 210 Cf. The “Five Pensioners” v. Perú, supra note 36, paras. 153 and 154; The Saramaka People v. Suriname. May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 121. 211 Cf. Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname Reparations and costs, supra note 207, paras. 50, 71 and 87; Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra note 39, para. 43; Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 47, para. 138; Escué Zapata v. Colombia, supra note 45, para. 132, and Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Perú, supra note 50, para. 166. 212 Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Yvon Neptune, supra note 6, para. 34 (folio 457). 213 Cf. Statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Yvon Neptune, supra note 6, para. 35 (folio 457). 214 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the representatives, supra note 65, para. 84 (folio 287).