133 from their agricultural activities and that the facts obliged them not only to abandon the place they had freely chosen to live, but also to abandon their livelihood. Consequently, and since there is no tangible evidence of their usual income, the Court should order, on grounds of equity, the payment of an amount to repair the indirect damage and loss of earning of the victims and their next of kin; (b) To determine the compensation to which those who lost their immovables have a right, the Court should determine the value on grounds of equity, even though it has not been possible to determine the characteristics of the homes of some of the owners or the exact number of cattle, horses and mules they lost. However, there is ample evidence of the damage suffered; (c) One factor to calculate the amount of the compensation for the persons who lost immovables is that, by Act 9 of 1989, the Colombian legal system established the concept of social housing and a quantitative standard to determine its value. This Act has been reformed several times and currently Act 812 of 2003 is in force. According to these criteria, “for villages such as El Aro, belonging to the municipality of Ituango, which has less than 500,000 inhabitants, the amounts for social housing range from 51 to 70 legal minimum wages; namely, from 19,075,000 pesos to 26,705,000 pesos (equivalent to US$8,293 to US$11.611)”; and (d) Compensation should be established for the displaced victims who were identified in the proceedings and who are described in the table containing the names of 724 persons presented in the final arguments brief and with the useful evidence. 368. In their final written arguments, the representatives included a list of persons who have reached a conciliation agreement with the State to receive compensation in keeping with the criteria of national jurisprudence. The representatives consider that the said amounts are low compared to the criteria used by the Court and request that these agreements should be taken into account as part of the payment of compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage determined by the Court. The State’s arguments 369. In relation to pecuniary damage the State indicated that: (a) Regarding quantification and determination of the financial claims, these should be strictly adjusted to the Court’s case law, particularly taking into account the specific conditions of the claimants as regards their social, professional and financial situation, and that reparations are supposed to provide compensation and not to enrich; and (b) The reparations recognized by the State in the conciliation hearings in the administrative jurisdiction should be considered fair and sufficient, as regards the rights to life and property.