28 134. In the instant case, the Commission stated that Mr. Bueno-Alves and his next of kin were forced to make substantial economic efforts to search for justice and pay for the necessary psychological treatment, in addition to the fact that the injuries suffered by the victim prevented him from continuing his activities and work. Moreover, the representative requested that the Court order the State to compensate the victim on account of the following: a) “property damage;” b) “loss of earnings;” c) “physical harm” –including both: i) “resulting disability,” and ii) “medical, pharmaceutical, treatment, and rehabilitation expenses;” d) “future consequential damages;” and e) “legal defense [and] transfer expenses.” Next, the Court will analyze each such request. To facilitate this analysis, the terminology used by the representative will be maintained. a) “Property damage” 135. According to the representative, Mr. Bueno-Alves “was to be paid an amount of money for the cancellation of the sales transaction he had performed” with Mrs. Lage. Said amount totaled US$ 21,000.00 (twenty-one thousand United States dollars). Allegedly, said amount of money had been seized by the State and “was never reimbursed.” The representative also claimed for “compensatory interest” up to June 30, 2006, and requested that the State pay a total sum of US$ 309,353.40 (three hundred nine thousand three hundred and fifty-three United States dollars and forty cents). 136. The State argued, inter alia, that “said claim could not be a part of the compensation sought from the State […], as the transaction was the result [of] an act between private parties […] in which the State had not been involved.” 137. In this regard, it should be noted that in the domestic proceedings it was not proven that Mr. Bueno-Alves had been the victim of a crime on account of the failed real estate purchase and sale transaction, or that Mr. Bueno-Alves had been entitled to any reimbursement for such failed transaction. Even on the assumption that reimbursement of the amount allegedly paid by Mr. Bueno-Alves was due to him, said obligation would fall on whoever was actually paid the money, not the State. Likewise, the Court has found no evidence that the amount claimed was seized by State agents. Therefore, the representative’s claims for “property damages” are inadmissible. b) “Loss of earnings” 138. The representative argued that “[t]he consequences of the injuries suffered by the victim, both physical and psychological, put an end to [the] work activity [of Mr. BuenoAlves,] as his disability turned from partial to total, which prevented him from earning any sort of income required to support his family.” The representative based the calculation of damages for loss of earnings on the alleged income generated by Mr. Bueno-Alves, and requested that the amount due be computed from January 12, 1988 to the age of retirement provided by the Argentine legislation, which is 65 years of age for men. The total sum sought as compensation on this account amounts to US$ 15,689,696.00 (fifteen million six hundred eighty-nine thousand six hundred and ninety-six United States dollars). 139. In its closing written arguments, the State pointed out that it “definitely acknowledges that Mr. Bueno-Alves is legally entitled to reparations in accordance with the extent of his disability, as determined by the expert reports, all in line with such liability as [the] Court may consider attributable to the State.” 140. Thus, the Court understands that there is no controversy between the parties as to the fact that Mr. Bueno-Alves must be compensated for the work disability that resulted