of transparency and access to information in a democratic society, in relation to military doctrine, but the Court holds that at this time the information provided does not allow it to reach a more specific decision about the manuals and regulations in question, or the need to disclose or publish current military doctrine. Nonetheless, the Court deems it essential that any framework of transition to peace necessarily includes the strengthening of democratic society. Therefore it must be possible for the State to guarantee the right of Colombian society to have access, in a broad public dialogue, to information of this kind, and to establish parameters and limits, so that the actions of the Armed Forces and the definition of the means and methods of war are strictly in line with International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. 232 234. With regard to the other measures requested, this Court finds that there is no causal link with the facts of the case, so it is not appropriate to order them. It also deems the measures already ordered to be sufficient. Nonetheless, it will take into account the differentiated impact suffered by Candelaria Vergara in determining compensatory damages. G) Compensation 235. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to fully repair the human rights violations declared in the Merits Report, in terms of both the material and moral harm suffered by the victims. 236. The representatives asked the Court to set, in equity, a total sum of USD 30,750 for consequential damage, to be distributed among the different relatives. 237. With regard to loss of earnings, the representatives were asked to calculate the amount of basic severance pay (IBL), taking into account Pedro Julio Movilla’s monthly earnings at the time when the events took place, the legally established minimum wage for the year 2020, and a life expectancy of 74.1 years, according to Resolution No. 0110 of January 22, 2014, of the Financial Superintendency of Colombia. However, they asked that, instead of pegging the amount to an index, the Court take the minimum wage for the year 2020 into account (2020 was the year in which the pleadings and motions brief was submitted). The sum in question was 877,803.00, which, at the exchange rate provided up to the settlement date used by the representatives (1 USD=3,493.77 COP), equals USD 251.20. They asked that 25 per cent be added to this amount for social benefits, 25 per cent deducted for personal expenses, and the years of financial dependency of the beneficiaries determined, which they divided into four periods. This gave a total of COP 317,627,341.00 which, at the suggested exchange rate, would be USD 90,912.00. They asked that more than 60 per cent be given to the spouse, Candelaria Vergara, and the rest divided among her children, Carlos Julio, José Antonio and Jenny Movilla Vergara. 238. The representatives also asked that non-pecuniary damages in the amount of USD 100,000.00 be awarded to Pedro Movilla as a victim of forced disappearance, assigning 50 per cent to Candelaria Vergara as his spouse, and distributing the other 50 per cent in equal parts among his children Carlos Julio, José Antonio and Jenny Movilla Vergara. 239. The representatives also asked for compensation for non-pecuniary damage for other victims, based on the calculation of up to 300 times the minimum wage for serious human rights violations, as stipulated in the case law of Colombia’s Council of State. They asked that an amount be allocated to each of Mr. Movilla’s relatives who had been a victim, based on the closeness of the relationship and the severity of the harm done to them. For the purposes of compensation, they divided the relatives into the following three groups: the nuclear family of 232 Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 207. 60