State should ensure that no proceedings are held against Ms. J. based on the evidence obtained illegally and arbitrarily, as described in the […] Merits Report.” 410. In her motions and arguments brief, the representative requested “[t]he lifting ipso facto of the arrest warrant for J. in Peru” and “the final archiving of the proceedings opened against her, that began in 1992 and was re-opened after 2001.” 411. The State indicated that “the punitive claims of the Peruvian State continue to be legally sound […] and are founded on law, because they are based on a self-corrective measure that the State itself sought to accord to the trials held in that decade.” In addition, it indicated that “[c]urrently, the procedural defects referred to by the Inter-American Commission in its Merits Report no longer persist in the proceedings opened against Ms. J.; they have been rectified and the proceedings are being conducted with the appropriate guarantees of due process and based on laws that respect human rights.” It also stressed that “renouncing the obligation and the right to administer justice (ius puniendi) would imply convalidating the impunity of the serious illegal acts committed by the terrorist movements against the Peruvian State.” 412. The Court recalls that criminal proceedings against Ms. J. are currently ongoing, during which it has been declared that there are grounds to proceed to an oral hearing for the offenses of apology of terrorism (article 316 of the Criminal Code) and membership in a terrorist organization (article 322 of the Criminal Code). This Court has concluded that this criminal prosecution does not constitute a violation of the principle of non bis in idem (supra paras. 256 to 273). Therefore, the reparation requested by the representative that the proceedings against Ms. J. be archived is not admissible. 413. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that the State is obliged, owing to the general obligation to respect rights and to adopt provisions of domestic law (Arts. 1(1) and 2 of the Convention) to take the necessary measures to ensure that violations such as those that have been declared in this Judgment do not occur again within its jurisdiction. 573 Thus, as the Court has ordered in other 574 cases, the State must ensure that the proceedings against Ms. J. observe all the requirements of due process of law with full guarantees of a hearing and defense for the accused and, to this end, the State must take into account the Court’s conclusions in Chapters VIII and IX of this Judgment and ensure that the violations of due process verified in them are not repeated, and also, if appropriate, determine the effects of the violations found in this Judgment on the criminal proceedings underway against Ms. J. E) Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 414. The Commission asked, in general, that the State be ordered to provide integral reparation in favor of Ms. J., which should “include both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary aspects” supra para. 393). The State did not respond to the Commission’s request specifically. 415. The Court has developed in its case law 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 with the facts of the case. 575 Furthermore, international jurisprudence has established 573 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 106, and Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 117. 574 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 118. 575 Cf. 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 v. Honduras, supra, para. 246. 120