149 k) calculations by the representatives regarding the salary of Rolan Valencia, to establish his compensation, cannot be expressed in current value, as it has not been updated; l) despite the mistake committed by the representatives in calculations for Sinaí Blanco Santamaría, the State, in good faith, estimates the losses incurred at the highest value mentioned, and does not object to the request; m) there is insufficient evidence in the case file to justify the income of Antonio María Barrera Calle, for which reason the State requests that the probable income be set at the minimum monthly wage of that time; n) Mariela Contreras carried out an illegal activity with her spouse Gustavo Caicedo Rodríguez. Therefore, the State asks that they be denied compensation for lost earnings and, if this request is not accepted, that he be assumed to have earned at least the monthly minimum wage in force at the time; and o) compensation for lost earnings in the case of the Contreras family amounts to $ 481,595,515, in that of Enrique Pinzón López to $165,601,437.00, in that of Jorge Pinzón López to $165,601,437.00, in the case of Luis Eduardo Pinzón López to $183,746,683.00 and in the case of José Alberto Pinzón López to $183,746,683.00. Compensation in the case of Jaime Riaño Colorado amounts to $60,240,846.00. Lost earnings caused to the property of the conjugal partnership of Luz Mery Pinzón and the victim must not be accepted, as there is no evidence of their economic activity. Considerations of the Court 265. In this section, the Court will rule on pecuniary damages, for which it will set the amount of compensation for the property-related consequences of the violations found in the instant Judgment,282 taking into account the circumstances of the case, the evidence tendered, its jurisprudence, and the main pleadings of the Commission, the representatives and the State. 266. The Court agrees with the State that the evidence supplied is insufficient to establish with certainty the pecuniary losses suffered by most of the identified victims. However, it is also significant that, under the circumstances of the instant case, the next of kin of the victims were displaced from Mapiripán, for which reason it is understandable that they do not have the vouchers required. It is possible that many of them had to leave their homes abruptly, carrying with them only indispensable items. In this regard, then minor Nadia Mariana Valencia Sanmiguel stated: During the night we did not stay at home because we were afraid. We packed some things and stayed at the healthcare center […]. Everyone was at the airport to be able to leave.283 282 See Case of Yatama, supra note 7, para. 242; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 12, para. 193, and Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 274, para. 93. 283 See statement rendered as testimony before a notary public (affidavit) by Nadia Mariana Valencia Sanmiguel on February 4, 2005 (file with statements rendered before or authenticated by a notary public, page 4536).