24 73. For its part, the State objected to the assertions and figures presented by the Commission and Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez’ next of kin, arguing, inter alia, the following: a) Concerning lost earnings: Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez’ academic performance was so poor that there was no guarantee that he would promptly and satisfactorily complete his sociology studies; the calculation made of his future earnings from the practice of his profession was, therefore, baseless; b) Concerning the indirect or consequential damages: the figure given for the expenses incurred by the victim’s next of kin to investigate the facts was inflated, unsupported by evidence, and included expenses that were negligible (court costs); it argued that indirect or consequential damages should be limited to expenses incurred in proceedings before Peruvian authorities; and c) Concerning the nuclear family’s patrimonial damages: the alleged income of the victim’s next of kin was not properly substantiated; no causal nexus was established between the alleged human rights violations and the loss or sale of the family assets; the family’s move to another country was its own decision, but not because of persecution by Peruvian authorities. 74. Concerning the suggestion to the Court that a lump-sum compensation be awarded on the premise that an improvement in the victim’s future income was a “probable certainty”, the Court considers that compensation must be calculated on the basis of a definite injury that is sufficiently substantiated to find that the injury likely occurred. Given the circumstances of the instant case, the evidence is not sufficient to prove the loss of opportunity in the terms requested. 75. An equitable point of departure to use to compute the lost earnings is the minimum monthly wage in Peru at the present time. Under Urgent Decree No. 07497, of July 31, 1997, published in “El Peruano” on August 3, 1997, the minimum monthly wage is S./345,00, which must then be figured in dollars at an average exchange rate of between S./2.652 and 2.659 to the dollar, according to the exchange table applied (supra 68.C.c). The computation was done using 12-month annual salaries, plus an additional bonus of two months’ salary per year, in keeping with the Peruvian law (supra 68.C.d). most advantageous to workers (cf. Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Compensatory Damages (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 46, and Godínez Cruz Case, Compensatory Damages (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 8, para. 44). This figure was then multiplied by 49 years, the number of years between the victim’s age at the time of his disappearance and the end of the life expectancy of a Peruvian male in the 19901995 period, which is 71 years (supra 68.C.a).. From this amount, 25 percent must be deducted for personal expenses, and then the current interest added. Consequently, the amount at the present value as of the date of this judgment for this item is US$35,021.80 (thirty-five thousand and twenty-one United States dollars and eighty cents). 76. Compensation of the “nuclear family’s patrimonial damages” has also been requested because of the material damages that its members sustained by virtue of the consequences of Ernest Rafael Castillo-Páez’ disappearances which were