159. As the State indicated, in the judgment in the case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, the Court took note of the progress made by the State in the process of reforming the Venezuelan policing model. Among other matters, the Court underlined the following: (1) the 2006 establishment of the National Commission for Police Reform (CONAREPOL) in order to make a diagnosis of the Venezuelan police forces; (2) the approval, in 2008, of the Organic Law of the Police Service and the Bolivarian National Police Force, establishing the progressive and differentiated use of force by the police as a tool for police officers in their interactions with the population; (3) the creation, in 2009, of the Police Council, with the functions of providing advice on and taking part in the definition, planning and coordination of public policies on policing; (4) the creation, in 2009, of the Universidad Nacional Experimental de Seguridad, with the task of training police officers in keeping with the new Venezuela policing model, and (5) the elaboration and distribution, starting in 2010, of a collection of self-instruction manuals called “Baquías” [Skills Manuals] designed to establish institutional management indicators that allow each police force, autonomously, to evaluate the level of compliance with the reform processes. 181 Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find it pertinent to order the measure of reparation requested, and reiterates to the State the need to comply with the pending points ordered in its judgments. F. Compensation 160. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt measures of financial compensation and measures of satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The State argued that the claims for pecuniary reparation were disproportionate and should be adapted to the Court’s case law in such cases. F.1. Pecuniary damage 161. Based on the age of the victims at the time of their deaths (58, 23 and 21 years old), the life expectancy of a man in Venezuela in 2003 (72.94 years), and the minimum wage, 182 the representatives calculated the loss of earnings of Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez as US$27,138.51 (twenty-seven thousand one hundred and thirty-eight United States dollars and fifty-one cents), that of David Octavio Díaz Loreto as US$89,008.50 (eighty-nine thousand and eight United States dollars and fifty cents) and that of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto as US$92,641.50 (ninety-two thousand six hundred and forty-one United States dollars and fifty cents). However, they asked the Court to determine compensation for loss of earnings, based on equity, in favor of David Octavio Díaz Loreto for the sum of US$100.000 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) and in favor of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto for US$110.000 (one hundred and ten thousand United States dollars). They also indicated that the death of the victims resulted in unexpected expenses that were all covered by the family. The representatives referred, first, to the need to give them a decent burial and then the expenses incurred in order to obtain justice. They noted that, as “the family members do not have vouchers for those expenses,” the Court should determine the amount of this reparation based on equity. 162. Regarding the funeral expenses incurred by the Díaz Loreto family, the Court notes that no vouchers have been provided; however, it presumes, as it has in previous cases, 183 that 181 Cf. Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, para. 310. The methodology used by the representatives to calculate the loss of earning was as follows: they multiplied the probable life expectancy of each victim by US$2,422 (average of 14 annual salaries of US$173 each, corresponding to the minimum wage in Venezuela at the time of the events), and subtracted 25% from the result for personal expenses. 182 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 207 and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, para. 322. 183 -45-