30 that the company processed 1,000 m2 of marble, 35 to 40 percent of which was delivered to the Bueno-Alves brothers for “installation;” and that he stopped seeing them around the company “in mid-1988.” For his part, witness Roberto Horacio Serrago, who was allegedly the president of “Todo Mármol,” stated that the Bueno-Alves brothers were “on high demand in the marble business due to their work capacity and work quality;” that they were craftsmen that worked with the appropriate machinery, materials and staff; that they were recommended by the firm; that they worked on “major projects,” and that their relationship with the company came to an end in 1988. In the supplement to his original statement, the same witness said that Mr. Bueno-Alves and his brother were professional craftsmen who worked in the marble business on a self-employed basis; that he cannot estimate “for certain a fixed income for either one of the brothers;” and that both split their earnings in equal parts. Finally, said witness made an estimate based on the “income from the marble processed and delivered” by his company to the Bueno-Alves brothers. As per such estimation, the brothers earned a “monthly net income” in the amount of US$ 7,740.00 (seven thousand seven hundred and forty United States dollars); i.e., each of them earned US$ 3,870.00 (three thousand eight hundred and seventy United States dollars). 147. In the Court’s opinion, such statements show that Mr. Bueno-Alves and his brother were well-reputed marble masons; notwithstanding, they do not allow estimating a figure for the victim’s monthly income. The representative has not produced any other type of documents such as receipts or invoices issued for their work, contracts signed with different companies, or accounting books related to the Bueno-Alves brothers’ business. Another aspect to be taken into consideration is that, as per the certificates issued by the Administración Federal de Ingresos Públicos (Federal Public Revenue Service) and the Administración Nacional de la Seguridad Social (National Social Security Agency) and submitted by the State, there is no evidence that Mr. Bueno-Alves has paid taxes or social security contributions on his alleged monthly income. 148. To sum up, the Court has not been furnished with enough documents to consider Mr. Bueno-Alves’ alleged income proven and, accordingly, the Court does not consider it appropriate to take into account the estimates made by accountant José Esteban Cornejo and submitted by the representative, as they are based on a salary which remains unproven. 149. At the request of the Court, the State submitted the official estimates for the real and total pay of construction workers from 1988 to 2006,84 a report issued by the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (National Institute of Statistics and Census) on the indexes set for masonry and reinforced concrete labor categories from January 1993 through January 2007,85 and labor legislation.86 150. In this regard, the representative argued that “the index for t[he] average salary of a salaried worker could not possibly be used, as [Mr.] Bueno-Alves was never a salaried worker, considering that he was always a self-employed […] businessman.” 84 Cf. Report of the Ministry of Labor, Employment, and Social Security of March 6, 2007 (record of evidence submitted by the State to facilitate adjudication of the case, Volume I, folios 5563 and 5664). 85 Cf. Report of the National Institute of Statistics and Census of March 9, 2007 (record of evidence submitted by the State to facilitate adjudication of the case, Vol. I, folio 5642). 86 Cf. Labor Contract Law No. 20.744, Law No. 21.297. Labor Contract Regulations. Amendment to Labor Contract Regulations approved by Law No. 20.744. Law No. 20.695 repealed; Labor Unions Law No. 23.551, Collective Bargaining Agreement – Construction. Workers in general. 76/75 and Salary Agreements 83/05 (record of evidence submitted by the State to facilitate adjudication of the case, Volume I, folios 5665 to 5810).