expenses, thirteenth month, bonuses and allowances.192 209. When establishing the compensation amount, the Court recalls that the victims exercised judicial functions in the highest court of justice of Paraguay and article 261 of the Constitution stipulated a mandatory retirement age of 75 years (supra para. 23). The Court also notes that it has not been alleged that the victims received any type of compensation owing to their removal from office, and there is no evidence to this effect. 210. Regarding the specific claims of the representatives, the Court indicates that the fact that it is not feasible to reinstate Mr. Ríos Ávalos in office does not have an impact on the compensation for pecuniary damage; not only because these are two different concepts, but also because the precise purpose of the alternative compensation previously established is to compensate the consequences of his non-reinstatement (supra para. 186). 211. The Court also considers that the diverse arguments of the parties concerning the pension benefits of the two victims were imprecise, and their opposing positions in this regard were not clearly explained. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, in Judgments Nos. 951 and 952, the Constitutional Chamber, when requiring that the two victims be reinstated in their functions, ordered “notify […] the […] Finance Minister, for the budgetary effects and the corresponding pension contributions,” in order to “regularize” their situation.193 212. Therefore, it is pertinent to order the State that, in compliance with the decisions of the said Chamber, it proceed to regularize the pension regime of the two victims from the time of their dismissal as justices of the Supreme Court, based on the salary and benefits regime that would correspond to those functions over the years, until the date of death of Mr. Fernández Gadea and, in the case of Mr. Ríos Ávalos, until the date of notification of this judgment. This regularization must include the amount of the contributions that would have corresponded both to the State and to each of the former justices over the said period, as well as the estimate of any new pension benefits in the case of each victim. Then, Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and María Concepción Villalba Quevedo (who receives the pension corresponding to her husband) must be informed of these amounts and estimates so that they may know the amount of the respective contributions they would have to make and, if they find this appropriate, so that each of them can make those contributions and, together with the State’s contributions, a new calculation can be made of the pension benefits.194 The State must proceed as indicated above, including with the deposit of its respective contributions, if applicable, within one year of notification of this judgment. 213. It should be added that the State’s allegation concerning the exercise of “functions incompatible with the exercise of judicial office,” will not be considered because it lacked precise and well-founded arguments. Paraguay also asked that, in order to calculate the amount due to loss of earnings, the Court apply the “equity standard” used by the Supreme Court of Justice, which required the payment of a sum equivalent to twelve months salary for the concept of unpaid wages. In the Court’s opinion, the application of this standard, given its nature as a fixed and limited amount, does not respond to the reparatory nature of Cf. Payroll of salaries and emoluments corresponding to the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice, issued on July 15, 2019, by the General Directorate of Human Resources of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume IV, annex XV.G to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 8891 to 8894). 193 Cf. Judgment No. 951 of December 30, 2009, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay, and Judgment No. 952 of December 30, 2009, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume I, annex 10 to the Merits Report, folios 115, 116, 146 and 148). 194 Cf. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 9, 2020. 192 50