and must cease once the minor had been identified. 408 Lastly, it established that adolescents must always be separated from adults when in preventive detention or serving a prison sentence. In addition, the offices of the investigating police must have exclusive areas for adolescents who are detained in flagrante delicto or who are awaiting the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service in order to be brought before the judge. 315. Bearing in mind the foregoing, and that the representatives did not identify or provide the reasons why the current laws of the State would be contrary to or omissive with regard to the relevant standards, the Court does not find it pertinent to order a measure of reparation in this regard in this case. C.3.2.2 Request for a construction project to preserve the memory of the victims 316. The representatives asked that the State build a library, a multi-use sports arena and a cafeteria in the “Rosa Amelia Flores” school attended by the Landaeta Mejías brothers, and that these facilities be named after the Landaeta Mejías brothers. According to the representatives, this project would contribute to the development of the children who attend this educational establishment, providing them with spaces that encourage their physical and intellectual development. Neither the Commission nor the State referred to this measure of reparation 317. The Court observes that the measure request lacks a causal nexus with the violations established in this case, and finds that the delivery of this Judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to preserve the memory of the victims. Consequently, the Court does not find it pertinent to order the measure of reparation requested. D. Compensation 318. The Court takes into consideration that the Commission recommended that the State make adequate reparation for the human rights violations in both pecuniary and non-pecuniary terms. The State did not refer to this measure of reparation. D.1 Pecuniary damage D.1.1 Loss of earnings 319. Bearing in mind the ages of the Landaeta Mejías brothers at the time of their death (18 years and 17 years), the life expectancy of a man in Venezuela in 1996 (71.80 years) and the minimum wage, 409 the representatives calculated the loss of earnings of Igmar Landaeta as US$601,219 (six hundred and one thousand two hundred and nineteen United States dollars) and that of Eduardo Landaeta as US$604,049 (six hundred and four thousand and forty-nine United States dollars). However, they asked 408 Article 558 establishes that: “During an investigation, the Oversight Judge, at the request of the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service and, if appropriate, of the complainant, may decide the pre-trial detention of the adolescent for up to 96 hours, when he has not been identified or it is necessary to verify the identity provided, if there are any well-founded doubts. This measure shall only be decided if there is no other way of ensuring that he will not escape. Once full identification is achieved, the detention shall cease.” 409 The representatives used the following method to calculate the loss of earnings: Part A. Loss of earnings of the victim from the year of the murder until September 2012 (the last month in which the rate of inflation was published): (a) they took the minimum wage in Venezuela by year, as of the year of the victim’s murder; (b) they converted the minimum wage into Bolívares Fuertes based on data from the Central Bank of Venezuela; (c) they adjusted the minimum wage for inflation from the first year (of the murder of the victim) until December 2010, and (d) at September 2012, the adjusted wages were converted into United States dollars. Part B. Loss of earning of the victim from October 2012, based on his life expectancy: (a) they took the minimum wage in Venezuela for 2012, multiplied it by 12 months and then by the years that remained according to the victim’s life expectancy (annexes to the motions and arguments brief, folio 6677). 88