10 46. In determining the amount of compensation, the Commission has simply calculated the annual income that the victims would have earned, taking into account their ages at the time of their deaths and the years remaining until they reached the age of normal life expectancy in Peru. This would be equivalent to advance payment of future income. In the opinion of the Court, this reasoning is fallacious, because the purpose of the calculation at the time of death must be to determine what amount, invested at normal interest rates, would produce the amount of the monthly income the victim would have received during his probable lifetime in that country, at the end of which time it would be extinguished. A part of the monthly income would therefore be interest and the remainder drawdown of capital. In other words, the present value of an income from their monthly earnings for the rest of their probable lifetime is, perforce, less than the simple sum of their earnings. The sum thus obtained corresponds to the compensation at the time of death. However, since that compensation is to be paid many years later, the interest that would have accrued during that time must be added to that sum for purposes of calculating the proper compensation. 47. The Commission also assumes an increase of two percent per annum in the minimum living wage, an assumption which has not been substantiated. 48. In conclusion, the Commission makes no deduction whatsoever for the personal expenses which the victims would have incurred during their probable lifetime for such items as food and clothing. In the opinion of the Court, those expenses, estimated at one quarter of their income, should be deducted from the total compensation. 49. The Court considers that the appropriate compensation for each of the families of the victims should depend both on their ages at the time of death and the years remaining until they would have reached the age of normal life expectancy, and their actual incomes, calculated on the basis of their actual wage (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Compensatory Damages, supra 36, para. 46, and Godínez Cruz Case, Compensatory Damages, supra 36, para. 44) or, in default of the appropriate information, on the minimum monthly wage in effect in the country (Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, supra 9, paras. 88 and 89. 50. In the instant case, with regard to the first of the above factors, the Commission claimed that the life expectancy in Peru was sixty-seven years. Although this was refuted by the Government, it produced no evidence in support of its objection. With regard to the calculation of the monthly minimum wage, which would apply in this case, the Court observes that neither the Commission's declarations nor the data supplied by the Government provide sufficient information for determining the minimum wage. Consequently, the Court, for reasons of equity and in view of the actual economic and social situation of Latin America, fixes the amount of US$125.00 as the victims' probable income, and therefore as the monthly figure to be used for calculating the correct compensation (El Amparo Case, Reparations, supra 36, para. 28). Once the calculation has been made, 25 percent shall be deducted for personal expenses (ibid., para. 28). The interest accruing from the date of the events up to the present shall be added to that amount. 51. The Court, calculating the amounts on the basis of the above criteria, finds that the compensation that Peru must pay is US$31,065.88 to the next of kin of William ZentenoEscobar and US$30,102.38 to the next of kin of Edgar Zenteno-Escobar. 52. It is difficult to make the calculation for the next of kin of Víctor Neira-Alegría, inasmuch as neither party has supplied his age in its statements. The Commission proposed