consideration transportation, accommodation and food expenses in the places where they received information, as well as intermediation measures taken before State entities in order to demand progress in the criminal and disciplinary proceedings over the last 13 years. The State did not present specific arguments under this heading. 327. The representatives considered that “in the events, 27 persons, adults and children were injured and [therefore] their families had to care for them and use the family’s financial resources to obtain the health care services required for their recovery from the time of the facts until now. In addition, several of those injured suffer total or partial disabilities and secondary effects that affect their ability to work.”452 In addition, they considered that “they suffered intense physiological damage, because, experiencing this situation has affected their physical, psychological and psychiatric integrity and, currently, their overall health has been impaired, which is revealed by the effects of being subjected to such a tragic situation.”453 The State did not present arguments in this regard. 328. The representatives indicated that the funeral rites for most of the victims who were killed were held by means of collective commemoration. Their next of kin incurred the said expenses, which were claimed in the requests for reparation at the domestic level; however, the first instance judgment delivered by the Arauca administrative court454 did not recognize some of the amounts requested under the heading of funeral services, while it also failed to duly update the amounts requested;455 furthermore, it did not recognize interest to make up for the prejudice arising from this over the 13 years that it was not reimbursed and, also, reduced them by 2% as a result of the conciliation agreement in second instance.456 Consequently, they asked the Court to order the State to make an additional payment under this heading.457 452 In particular, they asked that the State grant “compensation, in equity, for the families of the victims, based on the following criteria: (1) For the family of a victim who was injured without being incapacitated for employment by the doctors, the sum of US$2,500; (2) For the family of a victim whose employment capacity was reduced by up to 10%, compensation of US$5,000; (3) For the family of a victim whose employment capacity was reduced by 10% to 20%, compensation of US$10,000; (4) For the family of a victim whose employment capacity was reduced by 20% to 30%, compensation of US$15,000; (5) For the family of a victim who suffered the highest reduction of employment capacity, the rule of increasing the sum by US$5,000 for each 10% extra, and (6) If the injured person was a minor, this compensation should be increased by US$2,500, owing to the increased care required by patients in this group.” In addition, they asked that the Court order the payment of the same concepts to the following families. To the Galvis Mujica family US$20,000, to the Neite González family US$5,000, to the Neite Méndez-Rangel family US$ 2500, to the Vanegas Tulivila family US$15,000, to the Molina Panqueva US$2,500, to the Ávila Abaunza (Castillo) and Bonilla Ávila US$2,500, to the Barranco Bastidas family US$2,500, to the García Guevara family US$17,500, to the Cárdenas Tilano family US$15,000, to the Quintana Bello-Tilano family US$10,000, to the Daza Rojas family US$5,000. To Fredy Yovany Monoga Villamizar US$20,000 and to other independent injured victims US$2,500. 453 The representatives requested, specifically, and according to the criteria stated, that the injured should receive reparation for physiological harm as follows: US$35,000 for Mario Galvis and Fredy Yovany Monoga Villamizar; US$30,000 para Edwin Fernando Vanegas Tulivila and Alba Yaneth García Guevara; US$20,000 for Mónica Alicia Bello Tilano; US$15,000 for Erinzon Olimpo Cárdenas Tilano; US$7,500 for Neftalí Neite, Marcos Aurelio Neite, Hilda Yuraine Barranco Bastilla, Rosmira Daza Rojas, Lida Barranca, Ricardo Ramírez, Yeimi Viviana Contreras and Maryori Agudelo Flórez; and US$5,000 for Amalio Neite, María Cenobia Panqueva, Milciades Bonilla, Gleydis Xiomara García Guevara, Maribel Daza Rojas, Ludwing Vanegas, Marian Arévalo, José Agudelo Tamayo, Pedro Uriel Duarte Lagos, Ludo Vanegas, Adela Carrillo, Alciades Bonilla and Fredy Mora. 454 Judgment of the Contentious Administrative Court of Arauca, Mario Galvis Gelvez et al., case file No. 81-001-232000-348, May 20, 2004 (evidence file, tome XX, folio 10180 to 10274). 455 The representatives updated the figures based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for December 1998, which was 52.18 and the CPI for September 2011, which was 108.35 points. This calculation was not contested by the State. 456 Conciliation hearings held before the Third Section of the Council of State, the first on November 24, 2006, and the second on November 8, 2007, in the proceedings for direct reparation in the domestic jurisdiction. On November 24, 2006, the parties reached a conciliation that was ratified in a hearing of November 8, 2007, and approved on December 13, 2007. See the Conciliation Agreement, Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., proceedings No. 28259, November 8, 2007 (evidence file, tome 3, folios 1044 and 1045), and Judgment of the Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., case file No. 07001-23-31-000-2000-0348-01, December 13, 2007 (evidence file, tome 2, folios 751 to 806). 457 They asked, in particular, that the State be ordered to pay: US$700 for the families of Salomon Neite and Luis Orlando Martínez Carreño, US$800 for the family of Edilma Leal Pacheco, US$900 for the family of Luis Carlos Neite Mendez, US$1,000 for the families of Rodolfo Carrillo, Deysi Katherine Cárdenas Tilano, Jaime Castro Bello and Egna ‐ 92 ‐