329. The State indicated that “the calculation of indirect damage for the funeral expenses incurred by the victims under the domestic jurisdiction ranges from US$335 to US$550 approximately” and that “this expense was calculated in the international jurisdiction at between US$700 and US$4,400,” so that it “does not understand how this can happen if the funeral expenses remain the same, and the jurisdiction under which they are requested is irrelevant.” 330. The representatives argued that, owing to the effects of the explosion of the cluster bomb and the subsequent machine gun attack, as well as the military occupation of the village for almost three weeks, damage and destruction occurred to the homes of several Santo Domingo families which resulted in the deterioration of their living conditions.458 331. The State indicated, first, that “to date, [the destruction and/or deterioration of property and the loss of earnings resulting from this event has not been proved, so that] doubt exist about the ownership and prior existence in the village of the commercial establishments that supposedly were owned by these persons.”459 Furthermore, the State indicated that “the victims requested excessive amounts.”460 c) Non-pecuniary damage 332. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to make reparation for the nonpecuniary damage suffered.461 333. For its part, the State asked the Court to consider “that the payments made by the Council of State were reasonable when providing reparation for the non-pecuniary damage to the spouses, parents, children, grandchildren and grandparents. Margarita Bello Tilano, US$1,300 for the family of Johany Hernandez Becerra, US$1,700 for the family of Carmen Antonio Díaz Cobos, US$1,750 for the family of Pablo Suarez Daza, US$1,937 for the family of María Teresa Mujica, US$2,000 for the family of Nancy Ávila Abaunza, US$2,050 for the family of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero, US$2,600 for the family of Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tulivia, US$3,200 for the family of Arnulfo Arciniegas Calvo and US$4,400 for the family of Maria Yolanda Rangel. 458 In particular, they indicated that the amount of this measure of reparation should be US$5,000 for each family that recorded such a deterioration [to their living conditions] or to their property and possessions, and this should be increased by US$5,000 when the families recorded agricultural losses. Regarding the business establishments, the following families have indicated ownership of or damage to such establishments calculated as follows: (a) business establishment “El Oasis” owned by the Galvis Mujica family, US$193,431; (b) pharmacy and miscellaneous store “Santo Domingo” owned by the Molina Panqueva family, US$184,227; (c) business establishment for clothes, sewing materials and tailoring owned by Hugo Fernely Pastrana Vargas, US$49,348; (d) gas station, restaurant and hotel (lodging) US$42,779, and (e) Chevrolet vehicle owned by the Palomino Cortes family, US$15,499. The Court observes that the representatives forwarded contradictory information with regard to the amount of the measures of reparation of Hugo Fernely Pastrana Vargas, which also appears in the figures submitted by the representatives and for whom the amount of US$53,848 is claimed. 459 In particular, the State indicated that “if the ownership of the property has not been proved, […] it is not possible to infer that pecuniary damage has been caused”; second, the State indicated that, “since the ownership or possession of the business establishment supposedly affected in the village by the events that occurred on December 13, 1998, has not been proved, the pecuniary damages requested cannot be established, based on equity.” 460 The State indicated, in particular, that it was a recognized fact that, “in the village of Santo Domingo it is unreasonable to consider that a business establishment could cause damage for almost US$200,000 or that the deterioration of a lodging place could represent US$42,780. It is ludicrous to think that a 1955 vehicle could cost US$15,499, when new vehicles can be bought for around US$13,000. In addition to the fact that the amounts are unreasonable, neither the existence of the businesses, nor the ownership of the said properties has been proved.” 461 In particular, they asked that the payment be determined as follows: (1) for each of the 17 deceased victims, the sum of US$100,000, or the equivalent in Colombian currency. In the case of child victims, this amount should be increased by US$25,000, owing to their condition as such; (a) Regarding the next of kin: father, mother, spouse or companion and children of the deceased victims the sum of US$70,000; (b) Regarding the next of kin: siblings, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces of the deceased victims the sum of US$30,000; (2) For each of the 27 injured victims, the sum of US$1,000, or the equivalent in Colombian currency, for each unit of loss of employment capacity, and this should, in any case, be rounded up to the nearest multiple of $5,000, for purposes of equity. In the case of the victims who have only suffered wounds, the sum of US$5,000. In addition, in the case of children, another US$5,000 should be added if there is incapacity, or US$2,500 if they were only wounded; (a) Regarding the next of kin: father, mother, spouse or companion and children of the injured victims the sum of 20% of the compensation received by each of their respective family members; (b) Regarding the next of kin: siblings, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces of the injured victims the sum of 10% of the compensation received by each of their respective family members, and (3) For each of those whose right to property was harmed, the sum of US$3,000 in the cases that correspond to business establishments or assets, and US$2,000 in the cases relating to homes.” ‐ 93 ‐