of human rights, it is time to develop a public policy to reduce that risk and promote and protect the right (and the duty) to defend human rights.”336 Furthermore, it notes that according to the expert, a public policy for the protection of human rights defenders, including defenders of the environment, should at least take into account the following requirements: a) The participation of human rights defenders, civil society organizations and experts in the formulation of the standards that could regulate protection for the collective in question; b) The protection program should address the problem in a comprehensive and inter-institutional manner, according to the risk of each situation; and adopt measures to immediately address the complaints made by defenders; c) The creation of a risk analysis model that allows for the effective assessment of the risk and protection needs of each defender or group; d) The creation of an information management system on the situation of prevention and protection of human rights defenders; e) The design of protection plans that respond to the specific risk faced by each defender and the characteristics of their work; f) The promotion of a culture that legitimates and protects the work of human rights defenders, and g) The allocation of sufficient human and financial resources to respond to the real needs for protection of human rights defenders.337 244. Therefore, the Court rules that, in view of the fact that some of the policies referred to by the State are still pending approval, and in the interest of ensuring that such policies are implemented in an effective and permanent manner, the State must implement these in a reasonable time period, taking into account the aforementioned criteria. Moreover, the State must present a report within one year on the actions it has taken to implement these policies. D. Compensatory allowance 245. The Court considers that, in general terms, the Commission recommended “appropriate [r]eparation for the human rights violations declared in [its] Report [on Merits] in both the material and moral aspects.” For its part, the State did not refer to this measure of reparation. D.1. Pecuniary Damage 246. In its case law the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that this implies “loss 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 with the facts of the case.”338 D.1.1. Indirect damage and loss of income 247. The representatives stated that “[t]he death of Carlos Luna López brought unexpected expenses with it; the first was the need to provide him with a dignified burial. The corresponding funeral expenses were covered entirely by his family. The total amount requested for funeral expenses came to L 15,000 (fifteen thousand lempiras, which is 336 Expert testimony of Mr. Luis Enrique Eguren of January 28, 2013, supra (Merits file, page 665). 337 Cf. Expert testimony of Mr. Luis Enrique Eguren, supra, (Merits file, pages 663 to 660). 338 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C, No. 91, para. 43 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 212. 70