81 due to the facts and the pecuniary consequences that have a causal relationship with the facts of the case.”278 261. The Commission asked the Court to establish, in equity, the amount of compensation corresponding to indirect damage and loss of earnings. The representatives made specific requests concerning pecuniary damage, which include a claim for loss of earnings and indirect damage. For its part, the State contested the claims of the representatives, indicating that they “contradict the evidence” provided by the parties in this representatives and the Commission in the case and represent the “enrichment [of the victims] rather than a compensatory payment.” 262. As the Court has established previously, reparations must bear a relationship to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and with the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe the concurrence of these elements in order to make an appropriate ruling in keeping with the law.279 a) Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas 263. With regard to a compensatory payment for the sum that Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas would have earned during his professional life, the representatives indicated that he was in the third year of engineering studies at the time of his enforced disappearance. Consequently, they indicated that the State should pay the sum of US$263,250.00 (two hundred and sixty-three thousand two hundred and fifty United States dollars), calculated on the basis of “the [approximately] 32.5 years [that he would have worked …] as a professional,” receiving an “average monthly salary” of US$900.00 (nine hundred United States dollars) as a probable engineer, and subtracting from this sum “25% for his personal expenses.” 264. Before such claims, the State indicated that, at an initial procedural opportunity, the representatives had never “proved that Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas had been a third-year engineering student” at the time of his enforced disappearance and that it was unaware of the source used to establish the amount indicated by the representatives as an average monthly salary. However, in its answer to the application, the State projected the amount that Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas would have earned as a probable engineer during 36 years of work, based, among others, on a salary of US$450,00 (four hundred and fifty United States dollars); in other words, 50% of the amount claimed by the representatives. According to the State, this reduction is closer to the reality, because a recently graduated engineer would not earn the same as one with broad experience. On this basis, the State proposed a payment of US$157,950.00 (one hundred and fifty-seven thousand nine hundred and fifty United States dollars) for loss of earnings. 265. On the contrary, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that Mr. Rainer Ibsen was “a first-year law student” at the date of his enforced disappearance. Thus, “since it was not possible to establish how much he would have earned as a lawyer,” the State 278 Cf. Case of Bámaca- Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91. para. 43; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 261, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 242. 279 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra note 1, párr. 110; Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 227, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 362.