resources to correctly process all scientific and other types of evidence with the purpose of clearing up criminal acts. The Court will not supervise this process. Compensatory damages D.1. Pecuniary damages Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 475. The Commission asked, in general terms, for due redress for the human rights violations declared in its Report on the Merits, both pecuniary and nonpecuniary. 476. The representatives said that the family members had decided not to ask the Court for compensation to redress consequential damages, damages to family assets, and damages for lost earnings. 477. The State said that, because the applicants expressed their willingness to forgo compensation for pecuniary damage, the Inter-American Court should not order redress under that heading. Considerations of the Court 478. In view of the representatives’ petition, the Court finds it unnecessary to rule on pecuniary damages. D.2. Nonpecuniary damages Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 479. The Commission asked, in general terms, for due redress for the human rights violations declared in its Report on the Merits, both pecuniary and nonpecuniary. 480. The representatives explained that the family members in this case “preferred not to ask the Court for a specific amount for the losses they had experienced over the course of these […] years,” and thus asked this Court, availing itself of its powers and considering its precedent case law on the subject, to allocate an amount in equity. 481. The State objected to this request on the basis of its preliminary objections. In its final written arguments, the State said that, even though the representatives had not requested a specific amount but instead had requested redress in equity, in its view there had been no abridgment of the rights recognized in the American Convention, and therefore, no obligation to compensate. It added that “the purpose of the inter-American system is to protect human rights, and not profit from them, and therefore it would be inappropriate to allow financial claims to transform the […] Court into a mercantile tribunal, as this would not be consistent with its object and purpose.” Considerations of the Court