148 e) the evidence submitted as grounds to corroborate ownership of the property of the Valencia Sanmiguel family is not formal evidence and it cannot be replaced by any evidence legally submitted in the proceeding. The request for consequential damages regarding the money for their house cannot be heard, as the State, through the Red de Solidaridad Social, delivered an amount of money to them, with which they purchased a house. Also, there was a court settlement hearing with Mrs. Sanmiguel; f) the property of the Blanco Giraldo family with regard to which they request compensation is still part of the claimant’s property, and if not, it was substituted by other property equivalent in value. Furthermore, said compensation must be denied because neither Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo nor her daughter can ask to be declared beneficiaries of reparations, because an out-of-court statement is insufficient to demonstrate a de facto marital union, all the more so when there is a duly conducted and certified marriage; g) the documents submitted to prove ownership of the real estate listed by the Barrera Cruz family, in addition to not being suitable and legally established as full evidence, do not provide sufficient grounds to consider it proven that said property was under the victim’s control. There are anomalies regarding the improvements to the real estate that constitute the consequential damages. On the other hand, the residence and the house that are still in Barrera’s name; the next of kin of the victim continued to receive earnings generated by the commercial establishments identified, even though they did diminish. Also, the obligation to provide food to the children of Viviana Barrera does not pertain directly to the grandparents but rather to the parents –as the minors’ father had been doing; therefore, possible compensation must be recognized as a collaboration (which, anyhow, has not been duly delimited to consider the loss proven); h) the existence and ownership of the animals of the Caicedo Contreras family have not been proven. Furthermore, no compensation should be paid, as the property claimed was purchased with monies from illegal activities, such as growing and processing hallucinogenic substances; i) given the inconsistencies in the documents and testimony submitted to the Court, the State asks it to dismiss the Pinzón López family’s requests for compensation of losses. In this regard, there is insufficient evidence of a commitment to transfer ownership to establish said family’s property rights with certainty. Likewise, payment of a new house cannot be requested as reparation for consequential damages because the State returned it by means of a subsidy for Luz Mery Pinzón through the Red de Solidaridad Social and the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda de Interés Social y Reforma Urbana (INURBE); j) lost earnings should not include factors such as minimum wages, probable income, Christmas bonuses, service bonuses and vacations, as these are only granted to employees who work permanently for a firm, and that was not the case of these victims. Furthermore, the wage basis should reflect the certified indexes of the Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE);