183. For its part, the State asserted that the representatives "have not used any of the rational, prudent, or measured parameters available to them for calculating a legally viable and morally just compensatory claim according to applicable domestic and international standards" on the issue of reparations. In addition, the State holds that the representatives "did not include any valid evidence to even minimally justify the source [or] the amounts of the requested pecuniary reparations.” Consequently, the State asked the Court to reject the claims of the representatives and "in keeping with the circumstances of the case, establish the reparations due to the family members of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura based on the principle of equity and in keeping with applicable international standards on the subject." D.1.2. Considerations of the Court. D.1.2.1. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura 184. The Court notes that as can be deduced from the case file, particularly the testimony given by Mrs. Leontina Millacura Llaipén and Mr. Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura, at the time of his disappearance, Mr. Torres Millacura was unemployed. Nevertheless, it can also be deduced from that testimony that Mr. Torres Millacura often did different construction work. 179 The representatives did not submit pleadings or evidence allowing the Court to verify Mr. Torres Millacura’s income for the different activities that he carried out. Consequently, the Court rules to establish, in equity, the amount of US $40,000.00 (Forty thousand US dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in Argentine currency. This amount must be paid by the deadline that the Court establishes for doing so (infra para. 207). D.1.2.2. María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Fabiola Valeria Torres, and Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura. 185. The Court notes that the representatives did not provide any evidence justifying the request for the total amount of US $506,970.00 (five hundred and six thousand, nine hundred and seventy dollars of the United States of America), and US $5,955.00 (five thousand, nine hundred and fifty-five dollars of the United States of America) monthly as of October 30, 2010, until Ivan Eladio Torres Millacura appears, for Mrs. Millacura Llaipén and her children, Fabiola Valeria Torres and Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura, for pecuniary damages. In addition, it can be deduced from the case file that Mrs. Millacura Llaipén was unemployed at the time of the facts. 180 Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that Mrs. Millacura Llaipén made certain expenditures while looking for her son, given that as she told it, she lived in the First Precinct for more than one year in protest. This was not refuted by the State. 181 Therefore, the Court rules to set, in equity, the amount of US $10,000.00 (Ten thousand US dollars of the United States of America)in pecuniary damages in favor of Mrs. María Leontina Millacura Llaipén. This amount must be paid by the deadline that the Court establishes for doing so (infra para. 206). 179 Cf. Testimony of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén rendered at the public hearing before this Court; Testimony rendered before notary public by Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura on May 9, 2011 (case file on the merits, tome II, folio 1173). See also, the testimony rendered before notary public by Fabiola Valeria Torres on May 12, 2011 (case file on the merits, tome II, folio 1110). 180 Cf. Testimony of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén rendered at the public hearing before this Court. Moreover, in the complaint filed by Mrs. Millacura Llaipén on October 14, 2003, before the First precinct of Comodoro Rivadavia, she testified that she was “unoccupied” (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, f. 7199). Moreover, in testimony rendered by Mrs. Millacura Llaipén before Examining Judge no. 2 on November 6, 2003, she notes she is “a housewife" (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folio 7375). 181 Cf. Testimony of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén rendered at the public hearing before this Court. 53