6) Expenses assumed by his parents, in-laws, siblings and brothers/sisters-in-law to provide food and health care to his wife and son. 148. The State emphasized that Mr. Jenkins had not presented sufficient evidence to justify the large sums requested as compensation for pecuniary damage, and had merely made some general assertions. Regarding the expenses incurred due to the numerous legal proceedings, the State argued that it should be recalled that, in the only hearing held before the Inter-American Commission, the presumed victim participated by video call. In relation to the request to reimburse the expenditure for food, hygiene and cleaning articles, medicines and clothing, the State indicated that it had the obligation to ensure the safety and custody of individuals subject to legal proceedings, which entailed a duty to satisfy the basic needs of persons deprived of liberty, such as food, items of personal hygiene, medicines and clothing. According to the State, the requests made on behalf of Mr. Jenkins were inadmissible, especially as no evidence had been provided that authenticated the alleged expenses by the corresponding vouchers. Moreover, regarding the expenses of transportation to the establishment where he was detained, the State argued that, although the type of transportation expenses referred to were not specified, while he was deprived of his liberty, transfers were always paid for by the Federal Prison Service. Lastly, regarding reimbursement of the presumed expenses assumed by his parents, in-laws, siblings and brothers/sisters-in-law to provide food and health care to his wife and son, the State asked the Court to reject this request, because the said expenses had not been reliably authenticated. 149. The Commission did not present specific arguments on this point. 150. In relation to the consequential damage, the Court notes that the representatives did not provide any evidence that would allow it to make a reasonable assessment of the amount of the expenses that Mr. Jenkins incurred as a result of his detention. Nevertheless, the Court considers that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Jenkins caused him to incur a series of expenses resulting from his incarceration. Consequently, the Court finds it pertinent to order, in equity, the payment of US$5,000 (five thousand United States dollars) to Mr. Jenkins for consequential damage. (ii) Loss of earnings 151. The representatives indicated that Mr. Jenkins had worked as a national public accountant and lawyer, employed in the public sector in the Ombudsman’s Office and that he also freelanced. On this basis, the representatives requested US$80 (eighty United States dollars) a day for the time that Mr. Jenkins was deprived of liberty, which amounted to US$102,240 (one hundred and two thousand two hundred and forty United States dollars). 152. The State indicated that the arguments made were very vague and general and no evidence of any type had been provided to substantiate this request. The State argued that, at the time of his detention and subsequent deprivation of liberty, Mr. Jenkins had no university degree and no employment according to the information he himself had provided. In this regard, it indicated that Mr. Jenkins had concluded his legal studies in 1998; in other words, after he had recovered his freedom. According to his curriculum vitae, Mr. Jenkins earned his degree as a national public accountant in 2002, also after his release. Moreover, that document does not record any employment, or professional or academic activities prior to his deprivation of liberty. 153. The Commission did not present specific arguments on this point. 154. The Court notes that the representatives did not provide any type of evidence that would allow it to make a reasonable assessment of the amount for loss of earnings. However, it considers that Mr. Jenkins’ deprivation of liberty resulted in a legitimate loss of income. Consequently, the Court finds that, in equity, the State must deliver to Mr. Jenkins the sum of US$10,000 (ten thousand 35