26 relatives of the victims in this case to be “injured parties” and specifies that they will be recipients of reparations only in their capacity as heirs - that is, when the victim has passed away - and pursuant to the provisions of domestic law. B. Measures of satisfaction b.1) Publication of the Judgment 91. Neither the Commission nor the representative requested that the Court order this measure of reparation. 92. However, as the Tribunal has ordered in other cases,90 the State shall publish this Judgment one time in the Official Gazette, including all the corresponding headings and subheadings, as well as the operative part of the Judgment, though without the footnotes. A time period of six months is granted for carrying out this publication, counted as of the notification of this Judgment. C. Compensation c.1. Pecuniary damages 93. In its jurisprudence, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damages and the standards indicating when compensation is due.91 c.1.1 Arguments of the parties 94. The Commission did not request a specific amount from the Court for these reparations to the benefit of the victims. However, it did request that the establishing of material damages not be left to domestic authorities. In this respect, the Commission indicated that, “remitting the determination of damages to personal wealth to the domestic system could end up not being effective and causing further delays to justice and reparations for the victims,” especially because “various extrajudicial alternatives have already been explored and demonstrated to be ineffective.” The Commission emphasized “that the processing of the case before the Commission did not focus on establishing a precise definition of damage to personal wealth [and that] during that process before the Court, the parties have provided more information” with regard to the issue. 95. For his part, the representative held that reparations for material damages would rise to more than 30,334,725.87 (thirty million, three hundred and thirty-four thousand, seven hundred and twenty-five Nuevos Soles), updated as of the presentation of the brief of pleadings and motions. According to the representative, the expert accounting report submitted before this Tribunal “accurately quantified [r]emunerations and [c]ompensation for time of service provided, plus interest,” that the State has improperly appropriated as a consequence of the retroactive application of law “from July 1, 1992, until April 15, 2010,” to the periods during which the salary scale system was in and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Serie C No. 207, para. 163, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 212. 90 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87; Operative Paragraph 5 d); Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 17, para. 273, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 217. 91 This Tribunal has established that pecuniary damage assumes “the loss of or detriment to the victims income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the sub judice case.” Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 243, paras. 43; Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 17, para. 298, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 248.