4 the spouses and the permanent companions of the victims who were not compensated at domestic level”, that is to say, according to the representatives, “the Court considered that, in equality, the spouses and permanent companions of the victims of the massacre should receive a $70,000 compensation [seventy thousand United States dollars or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency] as non-pecuniary damage”. They added that in case of discounting the amounts received at domestic level, Mmes. Martínez and Herrera “would end up receiving a total compensation of $30,000 [thirty thousand United States dollars or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency] as non-pecuniary damage, an amount significantly lower than the $70,000 [seventy thousand United States dollars or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency] ordered by the Court for the other permanent companions of the victims.” Consequently, the representatives conclude that “discounting the domestic compensations of these two ladies would lead to an openly inconsistent result, as it would aggravate the inequality situation that paragraph 268 seeks to remedy.” 14. The Court verifies that there is an underlying doubt in the question posed by the State regarding the meaning or the scope of the judgment, reason for which it sets forth the proper interpretation. 15. At the time of fixing the payment of compensations for non-pecuniary damage, the Court considered that the reparation awarded to victims´next of kin by the State was adequate -within the context of the State’s administrative jurisdiction, to which the next of kin had resorted.3 However, the Court considered the case of surviving victim Arturo Salgado Garzón and of Mmes. Paola Martínez Ortiz and Blanca Herrera Suárez as an exception to the above. In these three cases, the Court considered that there was not a suitable reparation within the domestic scope. 4 Apart from these cases, the Court fixed a compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the twelve deceased victims, as no compensation was set at domestic level for the suffering of these victims, and for the next of kin who did not receive any compensation at domestic level nor were they included in the partial agreement on reparations.5 As it can be seen, these are three different reparation scenarios. 16. With regard to Mmes. Paola Martínez Ortiz and Blanca Herrera Suárez the Court stated the following: 268. In the first place, as to Mmes. Paola Martínez Ortiz and Blanca Herrera Suárez, respective female permanent companions of victims Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz and Samuel Vargas Páez, at domestic level they received a compensation amount lower than that awarded to the spouses formally married to other victims. In accordance with the case law of this Court and pursuant to Article 2(15) of the Rules of Procedure, it becomes necessary to award them a compensation for non-pecuniary damage in order to equal the compensations received, as that provision determines the equality of treatment to spouses and to permanent companions. That is why the Court equitably determines the amount of $ 30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency) for each of Mmes. Paola Martínez Ortiz and Blanca Herrera Suárez. 17. In the next paragraph, the Court analyzed the case of surviving victim Arturo Salgado Garzón, who had not received adequate reparation within the domestic scope either. With regard to Mmes. Martínez and Herrera and Mr. Salgado, the Court clearly stated the following: 270. At the time of the liquidation of the reparations ordered by this Court in the two precedent paragraphs, the State may deduct the amounts it awarded at domestic level in the 3 4 5 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre, note 1 above, par. 266. Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre, note 1 above, pars. 266 to 268. Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre, note 1 above, par. 267 and 271 to 273.