investigation and prosecution of acts that constitute illegal arrests or detentions, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and torture. b) Other measures of reparation requested 131. Regarding the accountability mechanisms for the members of the Haitian National Police, this Court has verified that, in its 2007 observations on its visit to Haiti, the InterAmerican Commission recommended strengthening the internal control organs of the HNP, such as the Office of the HNP Inspector General, and that the investigation procedures of officials who could be implicated in human rights violations be reviewed.110 It also recommended that coordination be improved between the State’s judicial officials and its Judiciary in order to ensure effective and independent investigation of the human rights abuses committed by members of the Haitian security forces.111 In this regard, in several reports, the Commission and the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti have emphasized the need to professionalize the State’s security forces and, in particular, they have mentioned the importance of conducting an effective process of selecting and certifying new recruits and existing officials in order to exclude those who have taken part in acts of corruption, human rights violations, and other crimes.112 132. Based on the preceding paragraph, taking into account the international cooperation processes that may exist in this regard, and to ensure that facts such as those of this case are not repeated, the State must take the institutional decisions and issue the necessary instructions to review and strengthen its accountability mechanisms and organs for the Haitian National Police who may be involved in human rights violations. D. Compensation 1. Pecuniary damage 133. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that it supposes “the loss of or prejudice 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 relationship with the facts of this case.”113 a) Arguments of the parties 134. The Commission asked the Court, without “prejudice to the claims presented by the representatives of the victims at the appropriate procedural moment, […] to establish, in 110 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on its visit to Haiti in April 2007, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.131, March 2, 2008 para. 22 and 23, and Special report “Haiti: Failed Justice or the Rule of Law? Challenges ahead for Haiti and the International Community,” supra note 24, paras. 127 and 131. 111 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on its visit to Haiti in April 2007, supra note 110, para. 21. 112 Cf. United Nations, Report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, Michel Forst, of 4 April 2011, A/HRC/17/42, paras. 57 to 63, Report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, Michel Forst, of 26 March 2009, A/HRC/11/5, paras. 33, 37 and 38, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 2009, chapter IV on Haiti, supra note 24, para. 19, and Special report “Haiti: Failed Justice or the Rule of Law? Challenges ahead for Haiti and the International Community,” supra note 24, para. 226.3. 113 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 90, para. 223. 35