42 three expert witnesses. In any case, the Court specifies that when certificates issued by domestic authorities are lacking, it will only consider these matters proven when several reliable probatory means concur; and c) as regards the fact that the victims contributed to cover the financial needs of the members of their families, and the origin of the funds required to cover funeral expenses, the Court likewise bases its decision on the reparations briefs, on statements of the surviving victims and the next of kin of other victims before a notary public, on the presumption of an agreement according to which adults who receive income and have a family use a major part of that income to provide for the needs of its members, and on the presumption according to which the next of kin of a deceased person cover the costs of his or her funeral. 64. The Court will resort to the aforementioned criteria to assess evidence, to the end of establishing certain reparations, as follows: a) as regards the general economic conditions of the victims and their next of kin, the characteristics of their economic activities and their level of income, the Court will base its decision on the aforementioned briefs on reparations, on the statements made before a notary public by the surviving victims and the next of kin of other victims, and on the presumption of an agreement according to which every person, once he or she attains majority, carries out economic activities and receives, at least, an income equivalent to the minimum legal wage in the respective country; and b) as regards non-pecuniary damage caused in connection with human rights violations such as those which the instant case refers to, the Court will resort to the presumption according to which such violations and the development of a situation of impunity with respect to them, cause grief, anguish and sadness, both to the victims and to their next of kin. * * * 65. Despite having several times requested that the State supply them (supra para. 12), the Court has not received the cassette with the tape recording of the message which should have been broadcast on the radio nor the videotape of the message that should have been broadcast on television, according to the November 21, 2000 Court Order (supra para. 9). The fact that these tapes were not sent to the Court could lead to the conclusion that the State did not broadcast the respective messages on the radio and television. In any case, there has been a conduct that is incompatible with the duty of procedural cooperation undertaken by the States when they ratified the Convention and when they accepted the contentious jurisdiction of this Court, one that the latter cannot overlook. V PROVEN FACTS 66. With the aim of establishing the appropriate measures in the instant case, the Court will refer to the facts acknowledged by the State and that were deemed proven in the judgment on the merits issued on November 11, 1999. Furthermore, during the instant stage of the proceedings, the parties have filed new probatory elements