11 known MARIA DEL CARMEN for approximately eight months, knew nothing about her relatives or origin, or of what could have become of her" (capital letters in the original). Bearing in mind that during the trial before the Colombian authorities, all mention of AnayaGonzález had been merely incidental and that this Court only became aware of his existence at the reparations stage; the vagueness of the statements by the witnesses, who had not even indicated the duration of the presumed cohabitation or where it had occurred, the Court considers that Cristóbal Anaya-González's status of constant companion has not been substantiated. 45. Consequently, as regards the compensation for material damage occasioned by the death of María del Carmen Santana, about whom the Commission admits in its petition to "ha[ving] very little information," and considering that no evidence of her real identity, age or kinship was produced for determining the amount of the damages, or of her potential beneficiaries, this Tribunal is not in a position to order payment of compensation under that heading. Given these special circumstances, the question of the victim's identity must be resolved under domestic law, and fulfillment of the part of the Judgment below (infra para. 52(b)) awards compensation for moral damage to the closest relative of the person referred to during this phase of the proceeding as María del Carmen Santana-Ortiz. 46. Regarding the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the relatives of the victims in their representations concerning this proceeding, the Commission has requested the sum of US$ 33,681.00 (thirty-three thousand six hundred and eighty-one dollars of the United States of America) and attached copies of some documents it produced as evidence of those expenses. *** 47. Following a detailed examination of the documents concerning those expenses, the Court considers that a substantial portion covers travel expenses and telephone calls outside of Colombia, newspaper articles, and preparation of posters and placards by the Santander Teachers' Union and the Andean Commission of Jurists, and not by Mrs. Nodelia Parra-Rodríguez. Accordingly, they cannot be included in the reimbursable expenses covered in operative paragraph 6 of the Judgment on merits as issued by the Court, which only recognizes expenses relating to the relatives' representations to the Colombian authorities. The Court, however, considers that Ms. María Nodelia Parra-Rodríguez must have incurred expenses with the Colombian authorities and fixes at US$ 2,000.00 (two thousand dollars of the United States of America) the sum to be paid directly to her. XV 48. The Commission, endorsing a communication from one of the representatives of the victims' relatives, requested payment of US$ 125,000.00 (one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for each of the relatives of the victims as compensation for moral damages, basing its calculation on the criterion of the Court in the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz Cases, Compensatory Damages (supra 15). 49. For its part, the Government accepted the existence of moral damage, but contested the amount of that damage, alleging that the recent jurisprudence of the Court established that the calculation should be based on principles of equity and not on rigid criteria. 50. The Court, bearing in mind all the special circumstances of the case and its own decision in similar cases (El Amparo Case, Reparations, supra 15 and Neira Alegría et al.