61 214. With regard to Jesús María Valle Jaramillo and his next of kin, the representatives requested that the Court “establish a sum of money […] to compensate their loss of income resulting from the violations of which they were victims in relation to these facts. To this end, it should base the calculation on the salary and benefits earned by a judge of a high court in Colombia.” In addition, the representatives indicated that, “with the exception of Ligia Valle and the successors of Octavio Valle, Jesús María [Valle Jaramillo’s] next of kin have expressed their satisfaction with the settlement agreement offered by the State.” Consequently, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay US$300,000.00 (three hundred thousand United States dollars) to both Ligia Valle Jaramillo and Octavio Valle Jaramillo, the equivalent to the amount received by each of their siblings, Luzmila, Nelly and María Magdalena Valle Jaramillo, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage under the settlement agreement. With regard to the indirect damage incurred by Carlos Fernando Jaramillo and his family, the representatives indicated that the family had to abandon its home and possessions following the facts sub judice; consequently, they asked the Court to order the State to “pay, in equity, a sum equivalent to the commercial value of the properties they had to abandon in the municipality of Ituango,” which, in any case, should be a minimum of US$1,000,000.00 (one million United States dollars). In relation to compensation for the loss of earnings suffered by Carlos Fernando Jaramillo and his family, the representatives asked the Court to establish, in equity, an amount “of at least US$300,000 [three hundred] thousand United States dollars.” Alternatively, they asked the Court to order the State to order the acquisition of “the land belonging to the Jaramillo Correa family in the municipality of Ituango and dedicate it to environmental programs or programs for the displaced. To this end, negotiators appointed by the victims should be used, respecting the commercial value of the property before the facts took place that led to its depreciation owing to the State’s failure to comply with its obligations.” Should “no agreement be reached in this regard, [the representatives asked the Court to order the State to grant the family] an area of land appropriate for raising cattle and crops, similar to the area they possessed in the municipality of Ituango, in another region of the Department or of the country chosen by the victims.” 215. The State indicated that “it will recognize the compensation that the Court orders for indirect damage and loss of earnings.” Given that the Council of State had approved a settlement with some of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo’s next of kin in this case, the State asked that, “when granting reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage with regard to Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, Nelly Valle Jaramillo and their direct nuclear family, [the Court] consider that the compensation agreed and paid [under the settlement agreement signed between the State and Nelly Valle Jaramillo and her next of kin and the next of kin of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo on April 26, 2007] was sufficient and recognize the significant progress made [by Colombia] concerning reparation in order to adapt to the guidelines provided by the case law of the inter-American system.”154 Furthermore, the State asked that it be allowed to deduct from each family member the amount awarded under the administrative proceedings when paying the reparations ordered by the Court. With regard to the alleged losses caused to Carlos Fernando Jaramillo and his nuclear family owing to the presumed loss of properties and possessions, the State argued that: “(i) there is no causal nexus between the facts of the case and the losses claimed; (ii) moreover, and if the losses are found to have been proved, the said request is not admissible in light of the Court’s case law, because it attempts to repair a violation of Article 21, which is not in discussion in this case, and (iii) if the losses are found to have been proved, […it] asked the Court to order compensation only with regard to the losses that had been duly proved, 154 Final oral argument on merits and possible reparations and costs submitted by the State during the public hearing held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on February 6 and 7, 2008.