7 and that the Commission's request for the case to be tried in the civil courts would constitute a breach of its Political Constitution, which entrusts such cases to the military courts. It also pointed out that the Court had previously ruled that the Judgment on the merits was a form of reparation for social damage, which, in any event, should be substantiated with "sufficient probatory evidence of the existence and extent of such damage." In conclusion, the State stressed that the promotion and dissemination of human rights was an aim of the Colombian Government, "which a multiplicity of bodies have been fulfilling for a long time." 23. On the subject of public acknowledgement of responsibility, in the course of the public hearing held by the Court on September 7, 1996, the Agent of the Government declared that "[i]f there is a need for further acceptance of responsibility by the Colombian State, this is the time for me to express it on behalf of my Government." VIII 24. The Commission estimated the overall expenses incurred in the proceeding at US$ 33,681.00 (thirty-three thousand six hundred and eighty-one dollars of the United States of America), "based on the official exchange rate of the Colombian peso to the dollar on April 23, 1996", to be paid to Mrs. María Nodelia Parra, Mr. Isidro Caballero-Delgado's commonlaw wife. In support of its calculation, the Commission produced documents relating to the money spent on photocopies, telephone calls, faxes, dispatch of correspondence, travel of witnesses, legal assistance, preparation of posters, and a few other items. 25. The Government claimed that there was no evidence that those expenses had been incurred by Mrs. María Nodelia Parra, inasmuch as most of the documents show that the sums were disbursed by the Santander Teachers' Union or the Andean Commission of Jurists. The State further claimed that recognition of expenses should be limited to those incurred for general representations to the Colombian authorities and that the evidence presented by the Commission did not clearly or conclusively establish that link. Lastly, it pointed out that it was not reasonable for the Court to order acknowledgement of sums invested by the interested parties to promote the proceeding before the Court "without any kind of limitation or parameter." IX 26. In Ms. María del Carmen Santana's case, the Commission estimated the loss of earnings sustained up to the date on which it submitted its brief on reparations at US$ 13,754.00 (thirteen thousand seven hundred and fifty-four dollars of the United States of America) plus six percent annual interest, and the future loss of earnings at US$ 86,138.00 (eighty-six thousand one hundred and thirty-eight dollars of the United States of America). The Commission based this calculation on the victim's presumed age of 19 at the time of the events; on life expectancy in Colombia, which is 73 years; on the assumption that Ms. Santana was earning the legal minimum wage at the time of her disappearance; and on the supposition that Colombian legislation recognizes additional social security payments of two months salary for each year worked. 27. In the case of Mr. Isidro Caballero-Delgado, the Commission calculated the loss of earnings up to the date on which it submitted its brief on reparations at US$ 23,670.00 (twenty-three thousand six hundred and seventy dollars of the United States of America) plus six percent annual interest, and future loss of earnings at US$ 112,555.00 (one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred and fifty-five dollars of the United States of America). The Commission based its calculation on Mr. Caballero's age of 32 at the time of