municipal, provincial and national levels. The Court recalls that reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case and the violations declared (supra para. 146). The measure requested bears no causal relationship to the facts of the case or to the violations declared in this Judgment; hence it is not appropriate to admit it or to include any additional considerations in this regard. 3.2. Single register of applicants for guardianship for purposes of adoption 185. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to adopt explicit measures to ensure that the provinces joined the “Single Register of Adoptive Parents.” Among other aspects, the State provided information on the initiative to create the provincial register of adoptive parents and the implementation of the Single Register of Applicants for Guardianship for the purpose of Adoption established by Law 25,854. Argentina indicated that “both requirements have been met and are in force.” In addition, it indicated that 10 provinces, including Entre Rios, had joined the register. The Court observes that Argentina has advised that it has created a Single Register of Applicants for Guardianship for Purposes of Adoption, and that the province where the facts of this case took place has joined it. The information available reveals that the measure requested is being implemented by the State. Although Argentina must continue taking steps to ensure that all the provinces join the Register, the Court does not consider it necessary to order an additional measure of reparation in this regard. 3.3. Gene bank 186. In their brief with final arguments, the representatives added as a measure of reparation, the establishment of a DNA gene bank of all children at birth to guarantee their identity scientifically. In this regard, Article 40(2)(d) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure states clearly that the claims of the representatives, including those relating to reparations, must be included in the initial pleadings and motions brief. Consequently, this request is timebarred and it is not appropriate to admit it or include any additional considerations in this regard. C. Compensation 1. Pecuniary damage 187. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it must be compensated. The Court has established that pecuniary damage involves loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the pecuniary consequences that have a causal relationship with the facts of the case.121 188. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay Mr. Fornerón the sum of US$147,000.00 (one hundred and forty-seven United States dollars 122 ) for pecuniary damage, based on the following concepts and amounts: 121 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 310. 122 All the amounts refer to United States dollars. 49