The State’s arguments 70. On this item, the State expressed: a) its offer to pay a total amount of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) as sole and comprehensive compensation “ for all the items requested by CEJIL and the Commission.” This compensation is fair, according to Bolivia, because the victim’s next of kin “have stated that they do not want money, but rather the punishment of the guilty” “and owing to the constant changes in procedural position” of the next of kin; and b) with regard to the victim’s loss of earnings, there is an error in the method used by CEJIL and the Commission to calculate it, because they backdated the salary of a professional, graduated in philosophy in 2000, to the moment when the disappearance occurred. The correct way would be to take the salary of a graduate of the teacher-training college in 1977, transform it to a constant value in United States dollars and bring it up to date, which “results in US$29,175.00” (twenty-nine thousand one hundred and seventy-five United States dollars). Considerations of the Court 71. Bearing in mind the information received during this proceeding, the facts considered proven, and its constant jurisprudence, the Court considers that the compensation for pecuniary damage in this case should include the items indicated in this section. 72. The Court bears in mind that some of the facts in the case occurred prior to the dates of the State’s ratification of the American Convention and acknowledgement of the Court’s obligatory jurisdiction. However, the Court also observes that the defendant State did not raise any objection to the facts of the case being considered as a whole, and with regard to the entire period from 1971 to the date of this judgment. It is also worth recalling that the Constitutional Court of Bolivia indicated (infra para. 107) that “unlawful deprivation of freedom or unlawful detention […] is a permanent crime”, that “the extinguishment of permanent crimes should begin to be calculated from the day on which the execution of the crime ceases” and “that the victim has still not recovered his freedom; consequently, the extinguishment has not yet begun to be calculated.” In view of the foregoing, the Court will examine and decide on the continued situation of forced disappearance of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and the consequences of this situation. 73. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the instant case, the Court considers that the State should compensate the victim’s next of kin for the amounts that José Carlos failed to perceive from the salary he could have obtained from the time of his graduation in philosophy. To this end, it establishes the amount of US$130,000.00 (one hundred and thirty thousand United States dollars), considering it adequate in terms of fairness, to be delivered to Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero as José Carlos Trujillo Oroza’s successor. * * * 74. Considering the claims of the parties, all the evidence, the proven facts in the instant case and its own jurisprudence, the Court declares that the compensation for pecuniary damage in this case should also include the following: