58 by the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Administrative Department of Security (D.A.S.), and the Municipality of Medellín and, on the other, by ten of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo’s siblings and one nephew, namely: María Leticia Valle Jaramillo (sister), Ligia Amparo Valle Jaramillo (sister), Blanca Inés Valle Jaramillo (sister), Luzmila Valle Jaramillo (sister), María Magdalena Valle Jaramillo (sister), Romelia Valle Jaramillo (sister), Marina Valle Jaramillo (sister, deceased), Octavio de Jesús Valle Jaramillo (brother, deceased), María Nelly Valle Jaramillo (sister), Darío Valle Jaramillo (brother) and Luis Fernando Montoya Valle (nephew, son of María Nelly Valle Jaramillo). In the Settlement Agreement, the State indicated that “[i]t [had taken] into account the recommendation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the acceptance of that recommendation by the Colombian State through Decision 001 of 2007 for the recognition of [the respective] damages.” The Court appreciates these efforts made by Colombia with regard to its obligation to make reparation and assesses them positively. The Court also assesses the information provided by expert witness Alier Hernández during the public hearing, to the effect that, in 2007, the Council of State indicated that “financial reparation is not sufficient, and this opens up the possibility for the victims to claim reparations other than mere financial compensation in their claims [under administrative proceedings].” According to the expert witness, this marks “the beginning of the penetration of the Inter-American Court’s case law into the laws of Colombia.”147 The Court finds that, should this development occur within Colombia’s administrative law jurisdiction, it could complement other forms of reparation available under different jurisdictions or other procedures at the domestic level intended to achieve, together, the integral reparation of the human rights violations. In this regard, the Court reiterates that, under the Convention, integral and adequate reparation requires measures of rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition such as those the State has undertaken to provide in the instant case and which the Court orders in this judgment (infra paras. 227 to 239). 203. Furthermore, the Court observes, as it has in other cases against the Colombian State, that, even though the comprehensive reparation of the violation of a right protected by the Convention cannot be limited to the payment of compensation, the indemnities ordered in administrative law proceedings may be taken into consideration when deciding the pertinent reparations, “provided that the decisions handed down in those proceedings have generated res judicata and are reasonable under the circumstances of the case.”148 204. The Court observes that the parties to the action under administrative law agreed that the State should pay compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages totaling $1,702,944,360.47 Colombian pesos (approximately US$845,000.00, eight hundred and forty-five thousand United States dollars). Under this action, the State granted Jesús María Valle Jaramillo compensation for “pecuniary damage […] owed [and] future” totaling $1,421,039,360.47 Colombian pesos (approximately US$700,000.00, seven hundred thousand United States dollars). This amount was distributed between Luzmila Valle Jaramillo ($369,019,165.72 Colombian pesos or approximately US$180,000.00, one hundred and eighty thousand United States dollars), María Magdalena Valle Jaramillo ($400,250,887.61 Colombian pesos or approximately US$200.000,00, two hundred thousand United States dollars), María Nelly Valle Jaramillo ($408,448,263.34 Colombian pesos or approximately US$200,000.00, two hundred thousand United States dollars) and Luis Fernando Montoya Valle ($238,275,46780 Colombian pesos or approximately 147 Expert opinion provided by Alier Hernández during the public hearing held at the seat of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights on February 6 and 7, 2008. 148 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre,” supra note 21, para. 214. Similarly, Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 21, paras. 219 to 222; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 339, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 30, para. 206.