35 had to endure. Therefore, the Court is requested to grant an equitable amount to compensate such persons for their loss of income. Argument by the State 73. As regards the pecuniary damage, the State made the following submission, to wit: a) in the instant case, the estate has not been evidenced by documents under seal or any other means of evidence, and therefore, the Court may not determine accurately the amount of the possible damages suffered. Furthermore, some items of evidence are defective in that they contradict others in many aspects; b) No documentary or testimonial evidence have been produced regarding the change of residence, work, nor evidencing the specialized medical attention received, the loss of property –including businesses, vehicles and real estate- nor the expenses incurred to seek justice by the Gutiérrez-Soler family; and c) It has not been proved that Messrs. Wilson and Ricardo GutiérrezSoler and their father, Mr. Álvaro Gutiérrez, suffered a substantial detriment in their working capacity due to the constant harassment they endured. However, the State in good faith accepts, in view of the weakness of the evidence submitted by the party having the burden of proof, the existence of a minimum damage that must be compensated as loss of profit. The aforesaid, on the basis of the principle according to which every working activity has a minimum vital and adjustable remuneration, which is proportional to the amount and quality of the work performed. The compensation has to be granted on the basis of the legal minimum salary in force in Colombia and not on an equitable basis as claimed by the Commission and the Representatives. On the basis of the legal minimum salary in force in Colombia, and applying financial formulae recognized in the Colombian precedents, the State figures out the total loss of profit sustained by Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler amounts to 136,305,374.46 Colombian Pesos. Considerations of the Court 74. The Court shall herein address the pecuniary damage, which implies the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victim, the expenses incurred due to the events and the pecuniary consequences that may have a cause-effect link with the events in the instant case,33 for which, if applicable, the Court fixes a compensatory amount seeking to redress the economic consequences of the violations that were determined in this Judgment. In order to make a decision as to the pecuniary damage, the Court shall take into account the body of evidence, its own precedents and the arguments submitted by the parties. a) Loss of Income 33 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 3, para. 157; Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 242; and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 3, para. 129.