2 Senator Cepeda Vargas had access to the administrative courts, which established compensation for loss of potential earnings based on objective and reasonable criteria. Consequently, the Court assesses positively the measures taken by the domestic courts in this case,1 and finds that the amount established by these courts is reasonable in terms of its case law. 6. Far from being reasonable compensation in the terms indicated, that decision constitutes an unjustified departure from the Court’s case law, expressed, for example, by the judgment handed down in the Case of the La Rochela Massacre,2 in the following words: 245. In this case, the Court notes that, in the administrative proceedings, the State awarded damages for loss of potential earnings to twelve children and seven spouses or companions3 of eight of the deceased victims in accordance with the guidelines set out by its domestic courts (supra para. 239). The Court recognizes the efforts made by Colombia with regard to the obligation to provide reparations and assesses them positively. 246. The Court notes, however, that the formula used to calculate and distribute the compensation for loss of earnings in the domestic proceedings is distinct from the formula used by this Court. The Court considers that compensation for loss of earnings should include the income that the deceased victim would have received during his or her remaining life expectancy. That amount, therefore, is incorporated into the estate of the deceased victim, but is delivered to the next of kin. Therefore, the Court will determine the appropriate amounts that it deems pertinent to order. 247. The Court has verified that the next of kin of the deceased victims, Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, Benhur Iván Guasca Castro and Orlando Morales Cárdenas, filed a claim under administrative law, but were not awarded loss of earnings, and that the next of kin of Arnulfo Mejía Duarte did not have recourse to this procedure. In this regard, and in keeping with its case law, the Court deems it appropriate to order compensation for loss of earnings to each of the four deceased victims mentioned above. 248. As it has in other cases,4 the Court establishes the following compensation, in equity, for the loss of potential earnings of the twelve deceased victims. In doing so, the Court takes into account aspects such as the victims’ occupations and their corresponding remuneration, their age and life expectancy, and the compensation awarded at the domestic level (supra para. 245): […] 1 [Footnote 334 in the text of the judgment] Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre, supra note 16, para. 245. 2 La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, paras. 245 to 250. The transcript of paragraph 248 omits the details of the compensation established. 3 [Footnote 243 in the text of the judgment in the Case of the La Rochela Massacre]. The children and spouses or companions of the deceased victims who received compensation for loss earnings were: Nicolás Gutiérrez Morales and Sergio Andrés Gutiérrez Morales, sons of Mariela Morales Caro; Esperanza Uribe Mantilla, wife, and Pablo Andrés Beltrán Uribe and Alejandra Maria Beltrán Uribe, children of Pablo Antonio Beltrán Palomino; Hilda María Castellanos, wife of Virgilio Hernández Serrano; Paola Martínez Ortiz, companion and Daniel Ricardo Hernández Martínez and Julián Roberto Hernández Martínez, sons of Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz; Luz Nelly Carvajal Londoño, wife, and Angie Catalina Monroy Carvajal, daughter of Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez; Mariela Rosas Lozano, wife, and Marlon Andrés Vesga Rosas, son of Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca; Blanca Herrera Suárez, companion, and Germán Vargas Herrera and Erika Vargas Herrera, children of Samuel Vargas Páez; and Luz Marina Poveda León, wife, and Sandra Paola Morales Póveda and Cindy Vanesa Morales Póveda, daughters of César Augusto Morales Cepeda. 4 [Footnote 244 in the text of the judgment in the Case of the La Rochela Massacre] Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para. 373; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para. 248; and Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 119, para. 80.