25 capital of the victim and find out from available data and information, the job development of persons similar to the victim from 1988 to the present. In other words, firm data exist for calculating the earnings of the victims from 1988 until today, but not for the future. In relation to the second period, it must be remembered that people receive salary increases. Every year the victims would have progressed in their position within the Guatemalan workforce, due to their age, personal experience and seniority. Also, in the long-term, the whole workforce of Guatemala increases its productivity and receives salary increases in real terms. Finally, it is likely that the victims would have received increases in nominal salaries due to inflation in the country. With regard to the first period in the case sub judice, the criteria applicable in order to make a reasonable calculation of such increases is determined from available data. If there is a lack of information on the earnings of similar persons in Guatemala, this can be obtained by consulting data produced by the International Labor Organization (ILO), which indicates that salaries increased by 24% between 1988 and 1998. Moreover, according to statistical data prepared by the Banco Central de Guatemala salary increases had risen slightly more than 50% per year in 1998 and 1999. It should be noted that this was mostly due to inflation, but also to real causes. For the second period, experience points to increases of 2%. We also have to observe the recent history of Guatemala with regard to the increase of the gross national product per capita, which is 1.5%, and World Bank documents could be consulted, as they give estimates about the Guatemalan economy as regards increases in productivity for the next five years, and these would be useful for the period extending from now until the future. * * * The considerations of the Court 67. The body of evidence in the case constitutes an indivisible whole that is made up of the evidence submitted during the different stages of the proceeding. Thus, the statements made by María Elizabeth Chinchilla, María Ildefonsa Morales de Paniagua, Alberto Antonio Paniagua Morales, Blanca Lidia Zamora de Paniagua, Oscar Humberto Vásquez and Raquel de Jesús Solórzano during the public hearing on the merits of the case held before this Court on September 22, 23 and 24, 1997, and the statement by Gilberto González Saquij contained in the police report of March 22, 1998, also form part of the body of evidence that will be considered during this stage. 68. The parties have contributed various tables to the file showing the life expectancy of the victims at the time of the events. These tables, which do not contradict each other, but represent different ways of making the calculation, are incorporated into the body of evidence. Owing to the discussion between the parties about this item, the Court makes some comments on these tables. The document entitled “Guatemala: los contrastes del desarrollo humano” (Guatemala: contrasts in human development), sponsored by the United Nations, measures life expectancy at birth by sex in the department of Guatemala. These calculations, which consider life expectancy at birth, cannot be used, because the victims had already lived a certain number of years; this factor improved their situation, so that the life expectancy applied to them, is greater. The 1990-1995 summary mortality table for Guatemala, prepared by the National Institute of Statistics corresponds to the general population by five-year period, age group and sex. Lastly, the leaflet of the National Institute of Statistics of Guatemala entitled “Indicadores Sociales de Guatemala” (Guatemalan