165. The representatives stated that “it would be impossible for [Mr.] Mohamed to recover the status he had at the time of the conventional violation,” but argued that he could be compensated “through just compensation.” Therefore, the representatives requested that the Court order the sum of U.S.$ 136,500 (one hundred thirty six thousand five hundred dollars of the United States of America)129 in favor of Mr. Mohamed in payment for loss of earnings, given that as a consequence of the penalty of disqualification from driving any type of vehicle for eight years, “his driving license [was] withdrawn" and the company only “paid him a month’s salary and the proportional amount of the annual supplemental salary.” The representatives also requested that the Court order the sum of U.S.$ 8,000 (eight thousand dollars of the United States of America) in favor of Mr. Mohamed as “[c]ompensation for the direct expenditures arising from the violation suffered,” considering that “when he lost his job, his income was significantly diminished,” he incurred expenses in the purchase of medicines, obtaining loans from neighbors and that Mr. Mohamed’s mother had to take charge of the family “during a reasonable time.” Finally, as a measure of reparation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay: i) US $54,600 (fifty-four thousand six hundred dollars of the United States of America) to Mr. Mohamed, of which US $27,300 (twenty-seven thousand, three hundred dollars of the United States of America) was requested for non-pecuniary damages130, and US $27,300 (twenty-seven thousand, three hundred dollars of the United States of America) for the disruption to his life project.131 The representatives indicated that they calculated the foregoing amounts “based on 20% of the estimated lost earnings for [Mr.] Mohamed.” 166. The State argued that any “eventual reparations […] should be limited to the purpose of this litigation” before the Court, in other words, regarding the “damages that [Mr. Mohamed] may have suffered owing to his inability to have access to a body to review his conviction.” Argentina argued that this Court does not have jurisdiction to “analyze the guilt or innocence of the alleged victim, and therefore, cannot order reparations to that effect”; specifically in relation to “the items and amounts of compensation as if to absolve him of the conviction” and with respect to “the damage [caused by] the conviction in the domestic court.” Furthermore, the State affirmed that “the amounts of the compensation claimed […] demonstrate complete ignorance of international standards [of reparations]” and that “the claims for such compensation lack any type of evidentiary support.” The State pointed out that the Court “could […] only analyze whether there were violations of the Convention and, if it considered that there 129 To estimate the appropriate compensation for “loss of earnings” the representatives “followed the parameters of the pay scales of the UTA (Unión de Tranviario Automotor), […] a union that represents bus drivers.” To calculate the exchange rate, they stated that at the time "the Convertibility Law 23,928 was in force" according to which one Argentine peso was equivalent to one dollar of the United States of America. The representatives mentioned the change in currency “after December 2001” but “considered it appropriate to establish a uniform standard” with regard to the value of the Argentine peso in order to calculate the compensation requested. To arrive at the sum of US $136,500 (one hundred and thirty six thousand, five hundred dollars of the United States of America) the representatives made the following calculation: “500 Argentine pesos, multiplied by 13 (twelve monthly salaries plus the annual bonus or aguinaldo) is equivalent to 6,500 Argentine pesos. Annual interest of 5%, equals 325 Argentine pesos for each period. 6500 Argentine pesos multiplied by 20 years is equal to 130,000 Argentine pesos and, added to the 20 years, the 325 Argentine pesos in interest (325 x 20= 6500) gives us the sum of 136,500 Argentine pesos in lost earnings, which is equivalent to the sum of 136.500 U.S. dollars.” 130 The representatives argued that the non-pecuniary damages suffered were due to: i) “financial needs that […] led to poverty” for the Mohamed Potenza family, placing them in a vulnerable position due to the “lack of effective judicial protection, adequate protection for their health and social security;” “the damage to their personal integrity”; iii) “the impact caused by the unlawful act” on the family’s social and working relations and the “anguish, suffering and uncertainty” it produced; iv) “the hardship caused by the loss of his job”, and v) “the impotence” caused by his loss of employment and the suffering it caused to his family. 131 The representatives stated that his life project was affected because of: i) “seeing his life project curtailed” and being forced to change it, and ii) the “extreme” change suffered in his living conditions as a result of being unable to have a job in which he could practice his profession “since his driver’s license [had been] withdrawn.” 45