-131subsistence of their families, the Court establishes compensation for the next of kin for the loss of earning of those 43 persons, based on the principle of equity,256 as set out in Appendix I of this judgment. 249. Moreover, the Court presumes that the next of kin of the six victims deprived of life and whose remains were returned to them, assumed the burial expenses, so the Court establishes, based on equity, a compensation of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) to each family of the said victims. This amount has been added to the amounts detailed in Appendix I of this judgment. 250. The Court abstains from ordering compensation in favor of the next of kin of the 37 persons disappeared and the six deprived of life in this proceeding with regard to other losses of a material nature that they may have incurred. However, it indicates that the award of reparations in this international instance does not preclude the said next of kin from filing the pertinent claims before the national authorities. 251. Regarding the proceedings for direct reparation instituted by the next of kin of the persons disappeared and of those deprived of life that are still pending before the Colombian administrative-law jurisdiction (supra paras. 95(148) to 95(158)), the Court establishes the pertinent reparations in this judgment, irrespective of their current status. When the State pays the compensation that has been established, it should inform the courts that are hearing the said proceedings so they can take the appropriate decisions. C) NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE Arguments of the Commission and the representatives 252. They requested that, given the grave circumstances of the instant case, the Court should order the payment of compensation, based on equity and on the characteristics of the disappearance and death of the alleged victims. 253. Arguments of the State (a) The State requested the Court to abstain from ordering it to recognize and pay any compensation for reparations until the national judicial authorities before whom the pertinent proceedings were ongoing had delivered a ruling, because it would be illegal. It made this request aware of the fact that it was not possible to invoke provisions of domestic law to contest the decisions of the Court; (b) Should the Court consider that compensation was admissible, the State would abide by the evidence it had provided to the Court with regard to the quantification of non-pecuniary damage, and (c) Colombia commends the Court’s motives for incorporating norms on non-pecuniary damage. However, regarding the amounts for compensating damage deriving from to State responsibility, the Colombian Council of State 256 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 80; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 10, para. 261, and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 125.