73 241. In ruling on reparations, the Court takes into account that surviving victims Wilson Humberto Mantilla Castillo and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas and their next of kin entered into settlement agreements with the State, which provided indemnities in their favor and contained a clause under which the beneficiaries agreed to waive any claims or petitions before the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. Such victims and their next of kin did not grant a power of attorney before the Court, and neither the Commission nor the representatives have claimed damages on their behalf. 242. In addition, the State alleges that, as a result of the proceedings conducted in the contentious administrative courts, “the obligation to compensate the victims who went to court and several of their next of kin has already been fulfilled", regarding both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The State alleges that “the factors and guidelines used to settle the reparations at the time the administrative court delivered its judgment […] (1995–199[7]), are the same as the ones the Inter-American Court relied upon in its own judgments]”. According to the State, “since the compensation amounts paid to the victims are in keeping with the Inter-American Court’s guidelines […], it is appropriate to find [...] that economic reparations have been fully made or, at any rate, [that] the Colombian State only has the duty to pay the remainder.” 243. The Commission and the representatives highlighted the differences “not only in terms of the amount of the awards but also regarding the types of harm redressed, and the procedures for calculating the damages” that exist between Colombian law and the InterAmerican System. * B.1) * * Pecuniary Damage 244. In its jurisprudence, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it must be redressed.242 245. In this case, the Court notes that, in the contentious administrative proceedings, the State has awarded damages for loss of income [lucro cesante] to twelve children and seven spouses or partners243 of eight of the deceased victims in accordance with the guidelines set out by its domestic courts (supra para. 239). The Tribunal recognizes and values the efforts by Colombia with regard to the duty to provide reparations. 242 Cf. inter alia, Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 213; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 423; and Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 8, para. 146. 243 The children and spouses or companions of the deceased victims that received compensation for lost income were: Nicolás Gutiérrez Morales and Sergio Andrés Gutiérrez Morales, children of Mariela Morales Caro; Esperanza Uribe Mantilla, spouse, and Pablo Andrés Beltrán Uribe and Alejandra Maria Beltrán Uribe, children of Pablo Antonio Beltrán Palomino; Hilda María Castellanos, spouse of Virgilio Hernández Serrano; Paola Martínez Ortiz, companion, and Daniel Ricardo Hernández Martínez and Julián Roberto Hernández Martínez, children of Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz; Luz Nelly Carvajal Londoño, spouse, and Angie Catalina Monroy Carvajal, daughter of Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez; Mariela Rosas Lozano, spouse, and Marlon Andrés Vesga Rosas, son of Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca; Blanca Herrera Suárez, companion, and Germán Vargas Herrera and Erika Vargas Herrera, children of Samuel Vargas Páez; and Luz Marina Poveda León, spouse, and Sandra Paola Morales Póveda and Cindy Vanesa Morales Póveda, daughters of César Augusto Morales Cepeda.