D. Other measures of reparation 129. La Commission recommended that the State adopt “the legislative or other measures necessary to avoid the repetition of the violations declared in the [Report on the Merits].” In addition, the State “should take the necessary measures to ensure that the execution of the judgment comply with the conventional standard of simplicity and swiftness and ensure that the judicial authorities that hear such proceedings are legally authorized and apply in practice the coercive mechanisms necessary to guarantee the compliance of judicial decisions.” 130. None of the representatives 147 offered specific comments on the matter. 131. The State claimed that, under the existing norms, “there are procedural mechanisms that are appropriate and conducive to guarantee the effectiveness of the judicial mandates contained in the final decisions of the judiciary.” It added that it denied that there was a general or structural problem with regard to the failure to comply with judicial decisions against the State. It also indicated that it has “made compatible the expense for the payment of the judicial judgments with the principle of budgetary legality.” 132. The Court notes that it has declared that it does not have sufficient elements to determine that the State violated its obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law, as prescribed in Article 2 of the Convention. Therefore, the request is denied since there is no causal link between the facts of this case and the violations declared. E. Compensation 133. The Commission requested the Court “to integrally repair the violations declared in the [Merits Report], including due compensation to all the victims in this case, for damages caused by the delay ad consequent denial of justice.” 134. The representatives Valdivia Ayala, Guerrero Cassuso, Rossi Mérida and Valdivia Bocanegra requested “compensation for damages caused by the delay and the denial of justice by the State for almost 30 years.” 135. The representative Meneses Huayra requested “integral reparation for the violations suffered and declared in the Merits Report […], including due compensation for all the 4,106 victims.” 136. The State argued that it had not infringed any right established in the Convention and, therefore, there is no “international State responsibility that requires that reparations be ordered that would include pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damages or any other related measures.” E.1. Pecuniary damages 137. The Court’s case law has developed the concept of pecuniary damages and has established that it involves the loss of or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case. 148 147 The representative Meneses Huayra requested the adoption of guarantees of non-repetition in her brief with final written arguments, which were declared inadmissible for being time-barred, pursuant to the terms of Article 40 of the Rules. 148 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91., para. 43 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 181. 34