D.2 Considerations of the Court 334. In this case, the Court notes that the next of kin of those who died in Santo Domingo received reparation under the Colombian contentious administrative proceeding (supra paras. 124 and ff.). Thus, 107 relatives of 16 of the 17 presumed victims who were killed462 have received compensation under the contentious administrative jurisdiction.463 These next of kin obtained reparation after signing a conciliation agreement with the Ministry of Defense that was endorsed by the Council of State.464 In addition, it appears that 5 family members have not received compensation under the contentious administrative jurisdiction for the death of their next of kin, even though they have exhausted this remedy.465 335. As regards those who were injured by the bombardment, 11 of these 27 victims received compensation under the Colombian contentious administrative jurisdiction. Some of them also received compensation as next of kin of those who died.466 In addition, two of the injured victims were not compensated, even though they had recourse to the contentious administrative jurisdiction.467 There is no evidence whether the remaining 14 injured victims had recourse to this 462 In the case of victim 17, according to the representatives, the young man Luis Enrique Parada Ropero was raised from an early age by Myriam Soreira Tulibila Macualo (merits file, tome 1, folio 240). However, she has received reparation for the death of her son, Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tulibila, and not for the death of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero. This means that she did not have recourse to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction in relation to the death of the youth Parada. In addition, according to the representatives, some members of the family of Luis Enrique Parada live in the state of Barinas in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and they listed the names of uncles (brothers of his father); Isidro, Andres and Isaías Paradas, however, they do not appear as victims (merits file, tome 1, folio 240). 463 Cf. Judgment of the Contentious Administrative Court of Arauca, Mario Galvis Gelvez et al., case file No. 81-00123-2000-348, May 20, 2004 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10180 to 10274), 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 the approval of the Conciliation Agreement, 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 751-806). In this judgment, the conciliation was approved between the Nation and 19 of the 23 joint litigators, it was declared that the proceedings were terminated with regard to them, and the agreement was not approved with regard to the remaining four, ordering that the proceedings should continue in their regard. Subsequently, in a judgment of November 19, 2008, the Nation-Ministry of Defense was declared materially responsible for the damage caused to the four remaining co-litigants. See Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., case file No. 07001-23-31-000-2000-0348-01, November 19, 2008 (evidence file, tome 3, folios 1047-1127). 464 By Decision 979 of the Ministry of National Defense of March 18, 2009, the conciliation agreement approved on December 13, 2007, was complied with (evidence file, tome 2, folios 1129 to 1146), and by Decision 1560 of the Ministry of National Defense of April 27, 2009, the Judgment of November 19, 2008, was complied with (evidence file, tome 3, folios 1148-1155), so that the Nation-Ministry of Defense paid the representative of the presumed victims a total of five thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight million seven hundred and fifty-nine thousand and nineteen pesos and twenty cents (5,758,759,019.20 pesos). Decision 979 provided compensation to 79 family members and Decision 1560 provided compensation to 30 family members. Two family members of a deceased victim (Carmen Edilia González Ravelo, wife of Salomón Neite; and Marcos Neite González, son of Salomón Neite) were compensated in both decisions. 465 Nerys Duarte Cárdenas, Andersson Díaz Duarte and Davinson Duarte Cárdenas had recourse to the contentious administrative jurisdiction, but did not receive reparation because they had not proved the family relationship. In addition, Lucero Talero Sánchez, companion of Levis Orlando Martínez, did not receive compensation either, because she had not proved that she lived with the victim; however, her children did receive reparation as his children. In the case of María Elena Carreño, she did not prove that she was the sister of the deceased victim Levis Orlando Martínez (evidence file, tome 2, folios 782 and 783). 466 Namely: Edwin Fernando Vanegas Tulibila (brother of Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tulibila), Milciades Bonilla Ostos (permanent companion of Nancy Ávila Abaunza), Mario Galvis Gelves (husband of Teresa Mojica Hernández), Mónica Bello Tilano (mother of Egna Margarita Bello Tilano and sister of Katherine Cárdenas Tilano), Amalio Neite González (son of Salomón Neite), Marcos Aurelio Neite Méndez (brother of Luis Carlos Neite Méndez), Erinson Olimpo Cárdenas Tilano (brother of Katherine Cárdenas Tilano) and Neftalí Neite González (son of Salomón Neite). 467 They are María Cenobia Panqueva and Neftalí Neite González. In the case of the former, the loss of employment capacity was not determined, and in that of the latter, no medical record was provided so that it was not possible to determine the loss of employment capacity. See Judgment of the Contentious Administrative Court of Arauca, Mario Galvis Gelvez et al., case file No. 81-001-23-2000-348, May 20, 2004 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10253); 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, folio 783), and Judgment of the Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., case file No. 07001-23-31-000-2000-0348-01, November 19, 2008 (evidence file, tome 3, folio 1081-1082). ‐ 94 ‐