81 321. Similarly, they requested that the amounts not be included in the judgment, due to the fear that the victims’ next of kin have of being extorted. Finally, the representatives made some observations on the values alleged by the State and supported by the expert opinion carried out by Héctor Eduardo Patiño. They pointed out that this test is not applicable to this case since it seeks to limit compensation to the standards of the State Council of Colombia, in the case of an inter-American proceeding. Additionally, they considered that the compensation should correspond to a joint assessment of the evidence provided in the process and the arguments put forward, taking into account issues such as the employment, social and educational circumstances of each individual to calculate his or her presumptive income. 322. The Commission did not present specific arguments regarding these requests made by the representatives. 323. The State indicated that the amounts presented by the representatives should have been calculated in accordance with the standards of contentious-administrative case law. The amounts were based on the expert opinion presented by the representatives, and furthermore, they did not provide proof of the registration of Noel Emiro Omeara’s birth, nor mortality tables to calculate life expectancy321 and there is no document that proves the status of cattle rancher and farmer in the cases of Messrs. Omeara Carrascal and Álvarez Sánchez. It also mentioned that the deeds of the demonstrated properties do not show that Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal was their owner. The State referred to the expert opinion it presented, according to which the amounts of compensation for lost earnings should be 487,391,186.00 Colombian pesos, equivalent to USD $169,632.00 (One hundred and sixty-nine thousand, six hundred and thirtytwo United States dollars) for the family group of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval; 5,600,635.00 Colombian pesos equivalent to USD $1,949.00 (One thousand nine hundred and forty-nine United States dollars) for the family group of Noel Emiro Omeara; 71,569,620.00 Colombian pesos equivalent to USD $24,909.20 (Twenty-four thousand, nine hundred and nine United States dollars and twenty cents) for the family group of Héctor Álvarez Sánchez. With this, taking into account that the calculations regarding Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal and Héctor Álvarez Sánchez should only be based on the duration of their disability, and their presumed income, that is, the current legal monthly minimum wage. Finally, it requested that the expert opinion carried out by Fernando Ruiz not be taken into account due to the errors he made regarding the value assigned to the economic and labor activities of the victims, their assets and the probable life expectancy in Colombia. 324. The Court has developed in its case law the concept of pecuniary damage and the cases in which it should be compensated. In addition to the foregoing, it has established that said damage supposes “the loss of or detriment to the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the … case.”322 325. With regard to the request made by the representatives to keep the amounts recognized in this judgment confidential, the Court does not consider it pertinent to grant it. 326. Regarding the expert opinion reports provided by the representatives and the State to justify the calculation of the loss of income of the three victims, both have discrepancies regarding the basis for calculating it for each one. On the one hand, the representatives requested that the presumptive income be used to establish the income of Messrs. Omeara Carrascal and Álvarez Sánchez; on the other hand, the State expert opinion was based on the minimum wage and did not take into account the life expectancy of each victim, but only the These documents were requested as further evidence. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 359. 321 322