5 administrative-law proceedings by way of “moral damages." 18. A reparation scenario which differs from the ones above was analyzed by the Court in paragraphs 271 to 273: that of the next of kin who did not receive a compensation at domestic level nor were they included in the partial agreement on reparations. As to the permanent companions who were included in this reparation scenario, the Court ordered the payment of $ 70,000.00 (seventy thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency.6 19. As already explained, the Court developed different arguments in each reparation scenario. In the first place, it analyzed what was repaired within the domestic scope, it set forth which cases it considered properly repaired and which not, so as to subsequently fix a fair compensation for all those who turn to the Colombian administrative-law jurisdiction. Then it analyzed the case of the people who were not compensated in the domestic scope and it fixed the corresponding compensation. 20. In view of the above, the Court rejects the arguments of the representatives in the sense that, when effecting the discount from the amount received at domestic level, Mmes. Martínez and Herrera would receive an amount significantly lower than that received by the permanent companions who did not receive a compensation at domestic level. In effect, the situation of inequality that it is sought to remedy is the situation, which existed among those who exhausted the administrative-law jurisdiction in Colombia, and not among those ones who did it and those who did not. Considering that these are two different situations, the operating equity criterion is different. 21. In accordance with the above, the Court considers that the question posed by the State is about a paragraph of the Judgment, the grammatical interpretation of which is enough to determine its meaning and scope. In this sense, the Court clarifies that the State may discount out of the US$ 30,000 (thirty thousand United States dollars) fixed by this Court for each of Mmes. Martínez and Herrera, the compensations for non-pecuniary damage that they received at domestic level. V REGARDING THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF THE RESULTS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 22. The State pointed out that the Judgment ordered that the results of the criminal proceedings of the instant case were released to the public. On that respect, "the State requests the Inter-American Court to clarify what is implied by the fulfillment of this measure of paragraph 295. Is it necessary to make a special release? What does the Court mean by “criminal results”? Does it also include a release of the acquittals? Should it be made public every time a judgment relating to the case is rendered?” 23. The Commission considered it appropriate that the State “carries out the pertinent investigations in order to put an end to the impunity of the case and gives those investigations the greatest degree of publicity possible, according to the reparation spirit that motivates it; in recognition of the importance of the elucidation of the facts, the determination of the pertinent liabilities and the end of the impunity of the case so as to mitigate the damage caused and so that the Court contributes to be a guarantee of non repetition of facts such as the ones of the instant case." 6 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre, note 1 above, par. 273.