the State must implement in favor of the victims in this case in the context of its social and political reparation programs, it is not appropriate to order these other measures that have been requested. D. Compensation D.1. Arguments of the Commission and allegations of the parties 324. The State has indicated that, in the instant case, it is not necessary to adopt decisions in this regard, because the State has already compensated the damage caused.448 The State indicated that this reparation corresponds to the payment of compensation for the losses caused to those affected in the Santo Domingo case. a) Loss of earnings 325. In light of the fact that the earnings of most of the victims is unknown, and there is even uncertainty about their productive activity, the representatives asked the Court to take as a basis the minimum legal wage in force in Colombia in 2011449 reduced by 25%, which is the percentage that the victim presumably used for subsistence.450 The State indicated is disagreement with regard to the “calculation of the loss of earning of the families affected by the facts analyzed on this occasion.”451 b) Indirect damage 326. The representatives asked “that a compensatory amount of US$5,000 be established in equity for each family group and, in the case of individuals, an amount of US$2,000,” taking into 448 It is answering brief, the State affirmed that “since March 2009, by means of electronic transfers from the accounts of the Colombian National Treasury, two payments had been made to the current account in the Banco BBVA of the victims’ legal representative. One for four thousand three hundred and sixty-five million one hundred and nine thousand five hundred and eighty-four pesos (4,365,109,584 pesos) and the other for one thousand three hundred and ninety-three million six hundred and forty-nine thousand nine hundred and thirty-four pesos (1,393,649,934 pesos).” 449 According to Ministry of Social Protection Decree 4834 of December 30, 2010, amended by Decree 033 of January 11, 2011, the minimum legal monthly wage for workers in the urban and rural sectors is 535,600 Colombian pesos. As the representatives indicated, this resulted in a wage of 401,700 Colombian pesos a month. The representatives added in this regard that the payments made for this loss of earnings should be increased by 25% for social benefits. Consequently, the wage based on which this damage should be repaired is 502,125 Colombian pesos a month; thus $6,025,500 a year, plus interest ($361,530); this would give a total of 6,387.030 Colombian pesos (representing US$3,348), a sum that should be multiplied by the remaining time in the life expectation in years of the victim and the loss of working capability in the case of those who were injured, in order to establish the total for reparation. The data on the loss of working capability has been taken from what was proved in the proceedings on reparation under the domestic contentious-administrative jurisdiction. 450 Based on the foregoing calculations, the representatives requested the payment of the following sums to the next of kin of those who died: to the Galvis Mujica family: US$114,935 for the death of María Teresa Mujica, and to Mario Galvis US$35,717 for his injuries. To the Carrillo Mora and Carrillo Moreno family: US$158,525 for the death of Rodolfo Carrillo. To the Neite González family US$77,036 for the death of Salomón Neite. To the Neite Méndez-Rangel family: US$185,174 for the death of Luis Carlos Neite Méndez. To the Vanegas Tulivila family: US$185,174 for the death of Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tulivila, and to Edwin Fernando Tulivila US$48,979 for his injuries. To the Duarte Cárdenas family: US$171,046 for the death of Carmen Antonio Díaz Cobos. To the Leal Pacheco family: US$177,742 for the death of Edilma Leal Pacheco. To the Hernández Becerra family: US$185,174 for the death of Johany Hernández Becerra. To the Martínez Carreño and Martínez Talero family: US$158,525 for the death of Luis Orlando Martínez Carreño. To the Ávila Abaunza (Castillo) and Bonilla Ávila family: US$209,614 for the death of Nancy Ávila Abaunza. To the Cárdenas Tilano family: US$209,614 for the death of Deysi Katherine Cárdenas Tilano, and to Erinzon Olimpo Cárdenas Tilano US$12,407 for his injuries. To the Castro Bello family: US$185,174 for the death of Jaime Castro Bello Tilano the Quintana Bello-Tilano family: USS209,614 for the death of Egna Margarita Bello Tilano, and to Mónica Alicia Bello Tilano US$34,650 for her injuries. To the Suárez Daza and (Suárez) Cedano family:, US$158,525 for the death of Pablo Suárez Daza. To Alba Yanet García Guevara US$47,687 for her injuries, and to Fredy Yovany Monoga Villamizar US$54,478 for his injuries. 451 In this regard, the State indicated that it is not sufficient “to establish the salary that the victim might have earned in order to extend it over his or her life expectancy (which, also, changes radically in the calculations. For example: the life expectancy for Mario Galvis, who died at the age of 47, was 78 years; for the child, Johany Hernández, who died at the age of 14, his probable life was calculated at 73 years; while for Salomón Neite, who died at the age of 58, his life expectancy was calculated at 81 years). When calculating loss of earnings, evidence must be presented that allows the employment capacity of the victim to be concluded, and also the financial dependency of his heirs or the contribution to the family wealth. In this case, none of this was proved.” ‐ 91 ‐