“he was convicted and the trial was still open, without knowing when it would end.” When he lost his job, Mr. Mohamed said that “he was desperate” since he did not have the financial means to support his family. He also affirmed that the dismissal involved “being left without social benefits and medical care,” and, therefore, he was unable to access or even afford psychological treatment. Mr. Mohamed stated that the situation in which he found himself made him lose the “will to live” and he “was often on the verge of suicide.” He said that in his state of desperation, his health deteriorated, “both mentally and physically,” which resulted in the onset of diabetes, high blood pressure and heart problems. Mr. Mohamed stated, inter alia, that being unable to drive, and being “the sole support for [his] family”, led him to seek other sources of income and work as a vendor of “churros […] plants, socks and t-shirts.” 171. Bearing in mind Mr. Mohamed’s comments in his statement, and particularly the fact that he worked as a bus driver,136 this Court finds that the failure to guarantee him a means to challenge the criminal conviction and the execution of the sentence of disqualification from driving caused a serious detriment to his financial situation and to his access to the social security system, as well as great distress and suffering. 172. For the foregoing reasons, the Court deems it appropriate to order compensation in favor of Mr. Oscar Alberto Mohamed that includes both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, for which it determines in equity the sum of US$ 50,000 (fifty thousand dollars of the United States of America). The State shall pay this amount directly to the beneficiary within one year as of notification of this judgment. 173. The Court notes that the representatives considered as “direct costs arising from the violation suffered” by Mr. Mohamed, the fact that he had to ask for loans from his neighbors, buy medicines at his own expense and even that his mother had to assume financial responsibility for the family for a time. These allegations were not proven to the Court. However, this Court finds that such expenses arose from the situation already examined by the Court regarding the loss of earnings, which was taken into account in setting the amount of compensation that includes both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him another compensation for the same situation. F) Costs and expenses 174. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included within the concept of reparations as established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention.137 175. The representatives asked the Court to order Argentina “to reimburse the costs and expenses incurred by the alleged victims and their representatives as a result of the present case.” 136 The body of evidence shows that, at the time of the facts, Mr. Mohamed earned a salary of 500.75 Argentine pesos as a bus driver (supra para. 61), information not disputed by the State. The Court finds that the calculation made by the representatives in requesting the compensation is based on thirteen salaries per year plus “annual interest of 5%” and an exchange rate of one Argentine peso being equivalent to one dollar of the United States of America. This Court does not have sufficient evidentiary elements to confirm whether the criteria used by the representatives to calculate Mr. Mohamed’s lost earnings are appropriate and takes note that the representatives make the calculation for a period of twenty years. The Court will take into account Mr. Mohamed’s lost earnings for the period during which he was disqualified, which was eight years according to the terms of the conviction. 137 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs, para. 79, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 290. 47