Arguments of the Commission 43. With respect to the request for reparations due for abridgment of the right to life of N.N./Moisés, the Commission stated that: a) the identity of the victim should be established before determining the pertinent amount of reparation and its distribution among his assignees regarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects. If the efforts to identify the victim and his assignees are fruitless, the Commission requested that the State be ordered to set up a trust fund for 10 years so as to maintain the amount ordered, while the process of establishing his identity continues; and b) it rejects the argument of the State that N.N./Moisés has no right to compensation for pecuniary damages because he was allegedly a guerrilla fighter, as there is no clear identification of who he was nor evidence of his participation in or ties with any guerrilla movement in Colombia. Even if it were established that the victim was a guerrilla fighter, pursuant to case law of the Court the respective pecuniary compensation would be in order. Arguments of the State 44. The State, in turn, argued that: a) N.N./Moisés was a “guerrilla fighter,” as the State has serious and reliable indications from internal processes to establish that said person was in that situation, for which reason it is not possible to conclude that he was a rural worker based on the premise that he died in a rural area. Therefore, reparation for damage cannot be claimed nor is it possible to compensate the next of kin for pecuniary damages as lost income, as the money they ceased to receive came from a criminal activity and said earnings would not be subject to legal protection. The amount requested as compensation for pecuniary damages is unacceptable in relation to the compensation ordered by the Court in cases of extra-judicial executions; and b) the next of kin of the victims would have a right to “compensation for non-pecuniary damages.” However, the State is of the opinion that the compensation due to the next of kin should be US$ 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars), exclusively for non-pecuniary damage, with prior demonstration of the identity of the victim and that of his beneficiaries. Considerations of the Court 45. Pursuant to the December 6, 2001 judgment, Colombia is responsible for the death of N.N./Moisés (supra para. 36). The Court established this responsibility primarily due to the statement in this regard made by the State at the public hearing on the merits on May 28, 2001. 46. None of the parties in this case have been able to provide any clues that might make it possible to know who N.N./Moisés was, what he was doing at the site of the event, what his occupation and age were, where he was from, etc. Nor have his mortal remains been identified. It is thought that they are buried somewhere in