357. Lastly, the representatives also asked the Court to order the State: (a) to prepare a television video and a radio program on the problem of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela; (b) ���to adopt comprehensive measures to combat violence”; (c) to adapt the protocols on due diligence in investigations to international standards, and (d) to erect a memorial to preserve the memory of the victims. The State opposed this last reparation request. 358. The Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims and does not find it necessary to order the said measures.434 C. Compensation 1. Pecuniary damage 359. The Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage in its case law and has established that this presumes “the loss of or prejudice to the income of the victims, the expenditure incurred owing to the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal connection to the facts of the case.”435 360. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to make reparation to the victims for the pecuniary damage suffered. 361. The representatives advised that, as a direct result of the death of six members of the Barrios family, their next of kin incurred funeral expenses amounting to BsF24,200.00 (twenty-four thousand two hundred Bolivares Fuertes).436 Given that the next of kin do not have the corresponding vouchers, the representatives asked the Court to establish an amount based on the equity principle. 362. Although the representatives did not provide vouchers for the funeral expenses. The Court presumes, as it has in previous cases, that the next of kin incurred such expenses as a result of the death of their next of kin.437 The Court considers, in equity, that the sums of US$3,000.00, US$2,000.00 and US$2,000 (three thousand United States dollars, two thousand United States dollars and two thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Bolivares Fuertes must be delivered to Eloisa Barrios, Elbira Barrios and Maritza Barrios, respectively, for funeral expenses for the seven individuals who have died. 363. The representatives stated that, as a result of the death of Benito Antonio Barrios, Luis Alberto Barrios and Narciso Antonio Barrios, their homes were abandoned. The representatives asked the Court to determine an amount, in equity, for the loss of the homes of Benito and Narciso Barrios, to be delivered to their next of kin. In addition, they 434 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 359, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 57, para. 267. 435 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of López Mendoza, supra note 16, para. 231. 436 The representatives advised that Eloisa Barrios paid the funeral expenses of Benito Antonio Barrios and Luis Alberto Barrios in the amount of BsF 6,600 (six thousand six hundred Bolívares Fuertes), Elbira Barrios paid the funeral expenses of Narciso Barrios and Oscar José Barrios in the amount of BsF 8,100 (eight thousand one hundred Bolívares Fuertes), and Maritza Barrios paid the funeral expenses of Rigoberto Barrios and Wilmer José Flores Barrios in the amount of BsF 9,500 (nine thousand five hundred Bolívares Fuertes). 437 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 57, para. 177, and Case of González et al. (Cotton Field), supra note 36, para. 565. 108