41 expectancy, remuneration and work benefits received as an employee of the “Filomena Tomaira Pacsi” Association. 168. The representatives alleged that, at the time of the facts, Saúl Cantoral was 42 years of age and that the life expectancy in Peru was 43.9 years. However, they consider that this statistical projection should not be applied because the victim could have outlived this projection by many years, taking into account the ages of his elder siblings, Juan and Ulises, who were 66 and 62 years old when the brief with requests, arguments and evidence was submitted. Based on this argument, the representatives made a calculation for the period from February 1989 to February 2006, arriving at a total of 73,781.98 new soles (US$22,563.30, twenty-two thousand five hundred and sixty-three United States dollars and thirty cents). They added 25% to the legal minimum income, corresponding to the minimum mining income (Supreme Decree No. 030-89-TR of August 2, 1989), to this calculation. The representatives also applied the labor laws on the retirement of mineworkers, according to which they have the right to receive a pension when they are between 50 and 55 years of age, and this pension is equal to 100% of their income or referential remuneration, without exceeding the maximum pension amount established in Decree Law 19,990 (Act 25,009 of January 25, 1989, articles 1 and 9). 169. With respect to, Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, the representatives allege that, at the time of the facts, she was 33 years old and had a life expectancy of 55.5 years. Using the same criteria, the representatives calculated that this statistical projection should not be used, since the victim could have outlived it by many years, taking into account the ages of her older siblings, Rosa Amelia and Manuel Fernando, who were 54 and 53 years of age when the brief with requests, arguments and evidence was submitted to the Court. Based on this argument, the representatives made a calculation for the period from February 1989 to February 2006, arriving at a total of 59,025.68 new soles (US$18,050.66, eighteen thousand and fifty United States dollars and sixty-six cents). 170. The State did not dispute this argument of the representatives, nor did it question the accuracy of the amounts they mention. 171. Based on criteria of equity, the Court considers it admissible to order the State to pay the sum of US$22,500.00 (twenty-two thousand five hundred United States dollars) for loss of income in relation to Mr. Cantoral-Huamaní and US$18,000.00 (eighteen thousand United States dollars) in relation to Mrs. García-Santa Cruz for the same concept. 172. The compensation established in the preceding paragraph shall be distributed among the next of kin of the deceased victims in keeping with the provisions of paragraph 161 of this judgment. The State shall make these payments within one year of notification of the judgment. 173. In relation to the expenses “caused by the long days spent visiting State institutions in order to promote an effective investigation into the facts,” requested by the representatives the Court observes that no probative elements have been provided in this respect. Notwithstanding this, the Court will rule in this regard when considering the procedural costs and expenses, and will also take into consideration the damage resulting from the failure to investigate, when determining the reparations for non pecuniary damages for the next of kin owing to the violations of articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 174. Likewise, vouchers were not submitted in the case of the funeral expenses. The Court presumes, as it has in previous cases, that the next of kin incurred various expenses