272. Furthermore, as a guarantee of non-repetition, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to a) create a unified, public and accessible database on complaints related to human rights violations committed by security forces of the State301; b) adopt a mechanism for registering detainees that is public and accessible, and c) create the General Police Commission. 273. Regarding the creation of a unified database, the Court notes that no connection has been proven between this request and the violations declared in this case. Moreover, according to the regulations mentioned by the expert witness Liderly José Montero Barrueta, Venezuelan legislation requires the preparation of annual reports by the police forces to detect patterns or trends related to compliance with the law and police standards302, and the obligation of the Governing Body for police services to “[g]ather and process information related to crime indices, police actions and other public security matters, which must be provided by Government bodies and institutions at the different political levels, and by private individuals and corporations when requested.”303 The Court also finds that the request lacks precision as to the nature of the data that would be accessible through this database and its link to the principle of presumption of innocence. Accordingly, the Court deems it inappropriate to order this measure. 274. As to the adoption of a public and accessible registration mechanism, the Court, having become aware, in the case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela,304 that the “Manual of Rules and Procedures of the Guarantees of the Rights of Detainees” establishes a procedure for arrests in Venezuela, requiring that an official register be kept containing the information indicated as necessary for that purpose, considers it unnecessary to order the measure of reparation requested. 275. Finally, regarding the request made by the representatives to order the creation of the General Police Commission, the Court considers that, given the reforms to Venezuela’s national police system since 2006, as well as the reparations ordered in this chapter, it is not necessary to order said measure. D.- Compensation D.1. Pecuniary damages 276. The Commission requested the State be ordered to adequately compensate the victims for the pecuniary damage suffered. 277. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to pay compensation for i) loss of earnings of the deceased victim305; ii) funeral expenses incurred by the 301 According to the representatives, “there is no database recording these facts in a unified [and standardized] way”, so it is not possible “to know with certainty the scale of this phenomenon, or to identify the agencies in which there is a more serious problem.” They added that for this reason, “it is necessary to produce reliable data [on complaints of human rights violations committed by security forces of the Venezuelan State], and that all agencies adopt the same scientific method for gathering information, with clear and standard definitions of the facts identified, and that these express precisely the circumstances in which the events took place and the persons implicated.” They added that “[t]he data should be analyzed by competent personnel and the results should be made public and easily accessible.” 302 Cf. Resolution “Rules on accountability in Police Forces in the different political and territorial spheres”, Article 7. Expert report of Liderly José Montero Barrueta via affidavit on November 15, 2011 (Evidence file, volume 16, page 5327). 303 Organic Law of the Police Service and of the National Bolivarian Police Corps, Article 18.12. 304 Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 353. 305 To calculate loss of earnings, the representatives took into account the victim’s age at the time of his death (21 years), life expectancy in Venezuela in the year of his death (72.4 years) and the minimum 67