37 128. In the instant case, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to order the State to pay compensation for indirect damage and loss of earnings. While the representatives asked that the State compensate the victim for: (a) “patrimonial damage”; (b) “loss of earnings”; (c) “lost opportunities” (derecho de chance); (d) “punitive damages”; (e) “medical expenses incurred”; and (f) “future medical expenses, for pending psychological and physical treatment. 129. In the following sections, the Court will establish the compensation corresponding to pecuniary damage based on the violations declared in this judgment, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, the evidence provided by the parties and their arguments. i) “Indirect damage” 130. The Commission indicated that “Mr. Bayarri and his family had to invest significant financial resources in order to claim justice and pay for the psychological treatment needed to overcome the consequences of the grave violations suffered.” In addition, it stated that “[t]he impunity of those responsible and the absence of reparation, 16 years after the facts, have altered the life project of Mr. Bayarri and his family.” 131. Under the heading of “medical expenses incurred,” the representatives requested that the victim be compensated for the expenditure at “the pharmacy and for the acquisition of the prosthesis up until 1995, to which should be added what he has spent on psychological treatment since he recovered his liberty in June 2004 and until the beginning of 2007, when he had to interrupt his treatment owing to lack of resources.” They requested the sum of US$15,000,00 (fifteen thousand United States dollars) up until 1996, plus US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) until 2007, plus an annual interest rate of 18% on each of these amounts, which adds up to a total of US$42,300.00 (forty-two thousand three hundred United States dollars). In addition, they alleged that “the receipts for the purchase of many of the medicines have not been kept in view of the very special situation experienced by the Bayarri [family], although many of the prescriptions for the purchase of medicines were attached to case No. 66,138/96, in which they were opportunely provided as evidence.” In their final written arguments, the representatives also requested the sum of US$2,000,000.00 [two million United States dollars] “[f]or motor disability, owing to the definitive loss of the ability to walk normally, to engage in sports activities, to lift weights, to jump and/or to walk long distances and/or remain standing still for a long time.” 132. In this regard, the State argued that “[the victim] did not attach a single receipt […] for the medical or psychological expenses that he said he had incurred over the years.” The State also argued that “[the victim] was deprived of liberty during the period mentioned, so that his possible physical or psychological ailments were treated by the medical and psychiatric services of the establishment in which he was lodged.” 133. The Inter-American Commission stated that, according to Dr. Eduardo Garré’s expert appraisal, “[t]he lack of dental care and attention while he was in preventive detention meant that [the victim] lost several teeth, so that, of the 32 that he should have, he only has seven.” The Commission also referred to the loss of several teeth that was recorded by Dr. Juan Carlos Ziella in his expert appraisal. 134. In relation to future medical expenses, the representatives stated that “[i]n the 13 years that he was imprisoned [the victim’s] teeth deteriorated totally, because […] the only dental treatment provided in Argentine prisons is tooth extraction, so that [Mr.] Bayarri’s