-79- Arguments of the State 149. With regard to pecuniary damage, the State affirmed that: a) It does not accept the amounts claimed, “because violation of the right to life and humane treatment has not been proved; consequently, the way the amounts have been calculated is not valid, because the calculation relates to the consequences of this violation”; b) In relation to loss of earnings, “since Erlinda and Ernestina were minors, they did not generate earnings, and they had no family obligations. Also, their next of kin are now adults and never required any earnings by the children for their maintenance”; c) Regarding indirect damage, it stated that: i. “The children’s mother returned to El Salvador in 1993 […]. In this assumption, María Victoria Cruz Franco did not incur in any expenses in relation to the search before 1993”; ii. “Owing to their financial situation, the Serrano Cruz family could not have incurred significant expenses in relation to the search for their daughters, rather it was the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda which incurred the expenses on their behalf”; iii. “Regarding the medical care and the expenses in the national jurisdiction, […] both items continue to be free in El Salvador[, … and] the possible indirect damage to María Victoria Cruz Franco, as a cause of her possible diabetes, […] cannot be attributed” to the State; iv. “The Court cannot establish compensation for the expenses [incurred by the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda], as it can for those of the next of kin, since none of the Association’s rights have been violated.” Considerations of the Court 150. In this section, the Court will determine the pecuniary damage, which presumes the loss of or harm to the income of the victims, the expenditure incurred as a result of the facts, and the pecuniary consequences that have a causal link to the facts of the case sub judice.44 In this regard, when applicable, it will establish an amount that seeks to compensate the patrimonial consequences of the violations declared in this judgment. To decide the claims regarding pecuniary damage, the Court will take into account the evidence gathered in this case, its own case law and the arguments of the parties. 151. According to its decision in the judgment on preliminary objection (supra para. 21), the Court cannot rule on requests for reparations for pecuniary damage that are based on alleged violations relating to the alleged disappearance of Ernestina and Erlinda or on facts or acts that occurred before June 6, 1995, or which began to be executed before that date on which the State deposited the instrument 44 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 9, para. 283; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 205; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 236.