169. Among their different requests, the representatives presented four groups of measures of non-repetition, which they described in detail, and which are: (i) regulation and implementation of external control measures for the federal police forces, including the “implementation of civilian and independent mechanisms that ensure the effective control of the legality of the performance of the police agents and of internal administrative actions”; (ii) improvements in the investigative capacity of the system of justice of the province of Buenos Aires in complex cases involving State officials; (iii) establishment of the Judicial Police of the province of Buenos Aires, including the obligation to adopt “legal and material measures that permit the creation of a criminal investigation unit that complies functions other than those performed by the preventive police forces, and that is able to assist the public prosecution service in these investigations,” and (iv) “legal and material measures to develop and implement effective protection systems for witnesses and victims.” The Commission did not refer to these issues. 170. In the Agreement, the State undertook the following: “to further the regulation and implementation of external control mechanisms on the actions of the members of federal law enforcement agencies”; “full […] operation of the provincial Judicial Police, including the creation of the Monitoring Committee to ensure its effective execution in the legislature of the province of Buenos Aires,” and “the establishment of an effective system of protection for victims and witnesses.” In addition, the State indicated “that these measures have already been initiated within the provincial and national Executive, respectively,” and that “the required commitment in this area is to strengthen and develop what already exists.” 171. The Court takes note of the undertakings made by the State, which are aimed at ensuring that the obstructions to the investigation and criminal proceedings, as well as the threats to witnesses that have been verified in this case, do not happen again. The Court will not monitor the implementation of these measures under the proceeding of monitoring compliance with the Judgment. D. Compensation 172. First, the Court notes that, in the Agreement, the representatives and the State asked the Court to rule “on the scope of the reparations in favor of the victims, which should include […] compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, based on the equity principle.” The Court will take this request into account to rule on the arguments of the parties in this regard. D.1. Pecuniary damage 173. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that this supposes “the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus to the facts of the case.” 275 D.1.1. Consequential damage 174. The representatives argued that the State should reimburse the expenses incurred by the Gutiérrez family as a result of the human rights violations committed to the detriment of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. In this regard, they asked the Court to order the State 275 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 246. 58