12 permanent programs on human rights and international humanitarian law in the training schools of the Armed Forces, including, specifically, issues relating to the enforced disappearance of persons and control of conformity with the Convention. 41. Accordingly, in the thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment, the Court ordered that: “[t]he State must implement, within a reasonable time, permanent programs on human rights and international humanitarian law in the training schools of the Armed Forces, as established in paragraph 274 of th[e] judgment.” 42. Therefore, the Court considers that the request for interpretation on this point is inadmissible since, under the guise of a request for interpretation, what is being presented is a discrepancy with the grounds of the decision, that is, with the decision adopted by the Court on issues that were already raised at the proper procedural opportunity (supra para. 12). In addition to this, the parameters expressed in the judgment regarding this measure of reparation are clear and sufficient and its satisfaction will be examined during the phase of monitoring compliance with the judgment. D. The compensation amounts ordered for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages Arguments of the parties and the Commission 43. The Peruvian State asked the Court to “please specify the criteria and the methodology used to determine the amounts set as reparations.” It argued that “such clarification is relevant because it relates to the amount that must be paid within [one] year according to paragraph 300 of the judgment.” The State clarified that “it is not questioning the amounts, or the term set for their payment, but in view of the fact that the amount of monetary reparations and the way in which they are calculated constitutes an issue of special importance in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission and Court”, it thought it important that the decisions of the Court, “have clear and uniform criteria in this regard”. 44. The representatives argued that the State's request for interpretation of this point is “manifestly inadmissible, since there is no obscurity or lack of clarity in the aforementioned judgment.” Firstly, they indicated that the State “alludes to the methodology”, however, “clearly [the] Court starts from a criterion of equity, based on which it has been setting amounts for compensation for the harm caused due to violations of the human rights of the victims and their family members, focusing […] on establishing whether or not there is a proven link between the harm claimed and the violation suffered.” They added that the “quantification of damages based on equity is part of the Court’s practice,” and “responds to the evidentiary difficulties that exist around gross human rights violations, such as those that have been subject of a decision in [this case], as well as others that have been brought to the attention of the Inter-American Court, which pursues the greatest possible protection for victims, within the framework of their right to have the harm caused fully repaired.” 45. The Commission did not submit observations on this point. Considerations of the Court 46. In the chapter on monetary compensation, the Court held the following: 1. Pecuniary damage a) Loss of earnings 277. The representatives indicated that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was 28 years old at the time of his disappearance and, based on available data, in 1991 male life expectancy in rural areas was 58.91 years.