Accordingly, the judges’ compensation for loss of earnings should be calculated up to October 2008, when the new constitutional order came into effect. 1.3. Judges who allegedly held other positions in public office 240. As to the point that some judges held positions in the public sector after their dismissal, this Court recalls that the payment of back wages is a measure of reparation for their untimely loss of employment and their legitimate expectation of continuing to receive these earnings. In this case, the former judges had the legitimate expectation of receiving salaries for life provided they did not act in a manner that constituted grounds for dismissal, which may have led them to take on greater financial commitments and life expectations than they might otherwise have had (supra paras. 232 to 235). In this regard, the State pointed out that some of the judges had held public office after their dismissal, which should have been taken into account when calculating their compensation. In particular, the State mentioned that Messrs. Donoso, Troya and Velasco had held other positions within the public administration. 263 On this matter, the Court questioned the State about the applicable domestic regulations related to the prohibition to receive two salaries as a public official and expressly asked the State to provide evidence in order to determine which of the judges would have held other posts. On this point, the Court notes that, although the State referred to the positions that these judges apparently held after their dismissal from the Supreme Court, the fact is that the State did not provide evidence concerning the positions they held, the period for which they did so, or the amount of the salaries that Messrs. Velasco, Troya and Donoso would have obtained in the exercise of those positions. Therefore, the Court considers it necessary to set a period of three months, as of notification of this Judgment, for the State to establish and forward to this Court the exact amount allegedly received by judges Donoso, Troya and Velasco for holding other public positions, so that said amount may be deducted from the compensation that will subsequently be set after the victims have been heard and in the context of monitoring compliance with this Judgment (infra paras. 148, 149 and 251). If the State should fail to provide this information within the established period, the amount for pecuniary damages for Judges Donoso, Troya and Velasco shall be deemed to be that specified in this Judgment (supra paras. 148, 149 and infra para. 251). 1.4. Criteria and determination of the amount 241. In this case the victims’ representatives provided as documentary evidence a “Certificate of Income” for the 27 Judges, issued by the Council of the Judiciary of Transition in 2011, and a “Certificate of Settlement” from the same year which was provided to the victims as an offer of payment in an effort to comply with the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The State did not question these documents, but argued that they were not binding. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the State, in its final written arguments, offered to attach to the file a Certificate of Settlement up until 2008 for each of the judges. However, this document was never submitted to this Court. In order to calculate the compensation, this Court shall take into account the two documents forwarded to this proceeding, namely, the former judges’ certificates of income and the certificates of settlement for those judges in possession of that document. However, 263 At the public hearing the State indicated that “after he was dismissed from the Court, Arturo Donoso subsequently held positions, such as on the electoral tribunal and not only joined the electoral authority but presided the highest court on electoral matters, which was part of the contentious electoral tribunal; subsequently he worked in the Attorney General’s Office of the State, as advisor to the Attorney General and adviser to the Supreme Court of Justice. Dr. Vicente Troya was President of the National Court of Justice, Dr. Jaime Velazco was president of the Supreme Court of Justice. Several other colleagues of Dr. Arturo Donoso also held important positions within higher education institutions, which they still hold today.” 68