Constitutional Court of Colombia,299 have referred to and applied the control of conformity with the Convention considering interpretations made by the Inter-American Court. 228. In conclusion, regardless of the legal reforms that the State must adopt (supra para. 225), based on the control of conformity with the Convention, it is necessary for the judicial and administrative interpretations and judicial guarantees be applied, adapting themselves to the principles established in the jurisprudence of this Court that have been reiterated in this case. 4. Other measures of reparation requested 229. The representatives “request[ed] that a general [m]easure of reparation and nonrepetition be agreed upon, in order to safeguard and protect the large number of Venezuelans who are in the same factual and legal situation [approximately 575 people], in order for the restoration of their political rights and the State undertake to not tolerate, accept, and adopt new tools to prosecute and limit these rights.” 230. Regarding this request, the Court finds that the issuance of this Judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and appropriate to remedy the violations suffered by the victim.300 Moreover, the Court held that the alleged context of persecution and impediments to the members of political parties of the opposition in Venezuela through the application of administrative sanctions such as disqualification from public office posed by the representatives was not included by the Commission in its application (supra para. 28), reason for which, for procedural reasons, they were not assessed during the merits of the matter. Thus, the Court reiterates that the reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case and the violations found (supra para. 210). Therefore, the Court will not render a decision regarding the request for reparation. C. Compensatory damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 231. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence the concepts of pecuniary301 and nonpecuniary damages302 and the reasons for compensation. 299 Judgment C-010/00 issued on January 19, 2000, by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, para. 6. 300 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 248, para. 359; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 267, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 21, para. 247. 301 This Court has established that the pecuniary damage is "loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the costs incurred due to the facts and the pecuniary consequences that have a causal relationship with the facts of the case." Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 177, and Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 15, para. 150. 302 Court has established that non-pecuniary damages "may include the suffering and distress caused to the direct victim's relatives, the erosion of values that are very meaningful to people, and the non-pecuniary changes in living conditions of the victim or his family.” Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 282, para. 84; Case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, supra note 13, para. 185, and Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 15, para. 150. 82