38 received as a lawyer and notary for nine years, for a total of US$708,000.00 (seven hundred and eight thousand United States dollars). The Commission’s arguments 89. Under the general heading of “pecuniary damage”, the Commission indicated the following in its briefs of August 31, 1998, and August 2, 1999: a) with regard to the loss of earnings of Anna Elizabeth Paniagua Morales, it endorsed the calculations submitted by the victim’s next of kin and underlined that the life expectancy of a woman in Guatemala was 46.53 additional years and that the victim had a daughter of five years of age. It also established that the victim would have earned US$1,600.00 a month, for the remaining years of her life expectancy, less 25% for personal use, and plus interest; b) with regard to the other expenses, the Commission also endorsed the information submitted by the victim’s next of kin. The State’s arguments 90. The State objected to the claims and calculations made by the next of kin of Anna Elizabeth Paniagua Morales and the Commission, making the following observations: a) with regard to the victim’s loss of earnings, it claimed that she was not registered as an expert accountant in the Ministry of Public Finance, which was an essential requirement for the exercise of that profession in Guatemala and that, according to information from the Identity Card Registry of the Municipality of Guatemala, the victim had stated that her profession was “office assistant”, so that the calculation of loss of earning should be based on that activity. In the absence of salary records, the minimum salary reported by the Ministry of Labor and Social Insurance for 1988 should be used and this was Q150.00 (one hundred and fifty quetzales) a month for an administrative employee. It also indicated that the victim was not studying economics at the Universidad de San Carlos at the time of the facts and that the life expectancy for women who were born during the period 1960 to 1965 was 47.90 years, according to the National Institute of Statistics of Guatemala; and b) with regard to the other expenses incurred by the victim’s next of kin, it claimed that the alleged expenditure to learn the whereabouts of the victim had not been adequately proven and that the expenses for the funeral were excessive. With regard to the expenses defrayed by the Paniagua Morales family, it had not been shown that these were the immediate consequence of the principal fact. Lastly, with regard to the expenses of German Giovanni Paniagua Morales, it stated that they were unreal in Guatemala. The considerations of the Court