2011 (supra para. 150). Therefore, ordering this codification, as initially requested by the Inter-American Commission, is no longer appropriate. 178. In addition, as referred to in Chapter VIII of this Judgment, Law 815 modified by Law 4123, which was applied to the facts of this case, is no longer currently in force, replaced by Law XIX - No. 5. (supra para. 68). As this law was not analyzed by the Tribunal in this case, ordering changes to that law is not appropriate. 179. The Commission also requested in its final written arguments that the Court order the State to “[t]ake the necessary measures to modify any legislation that treats children or young adults as criminals or suspects [...] because they are poor or are on the streets.” This reparatory claim was not made at the appropriate procedural moment - that is, in the application - and thus the Tribunal will not consider it for being timebarred. D. Compensation. D.1 Pecuniary damages. 180. This Tribunal has developed the concept of pecuniary damages in its jurisprudence and has established that they assume “the loss of or detriment to the victim’s income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case under review.” 176 D.1.1 Arguments of the parties. 181. The Commission asked the Court to order the State "to grant full reparations to the family members of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura, including […] pecuniary damages." 182. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay, to the benefit of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura, the amount of US $695,000.00 (six hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for pecuniary damages, as well as an additional monthly sum, starting October 2010, of US $8,225.00 (eight thousand, two hundred and twenty-five dollars of the United States of America), “plus support and contributions for health insurance and Social Security from October 2003," until he appears. 177 Likewise, for pecuniary damages, they requested US $506,970.00 (five hundred and six thousand nine hundred and seventy dollars of the United States of America) plus US $5,955.00 (five thousand nine hundred and fifty-five dollars of the United States of America) monthly, starting October 30, 2010, until Iván Eladio Torres Millacura appears, in favor of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Fabiola Valeria Torres, and Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura. 178 176 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 V. Venezuela, supra note 24, para. 146, and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 129. 177 They argued that “[g]iven the deprivation of [Mr. Torres Millacura’s] right to work and to plan his future, […] the Collective Work Agreement N° 605/10, should be used as refernce, approved on September 10, 2010, in the highst branch of production,” in order to calculate the amount corresponding to this. 178 In this regard, they held that Mr. Torres Millacura “was the breadwinner,” and that Mrs. Millacura Llaipén now “[d]edicates her life to the search for her son.” According to the representatives, Mrs. Millacura Llaipén has suffered much harm to her health “since […] the moment of the enforced disappearance” of her son; Fabiola Valeria Torres “[l]ives marked by […] the desperation of finding Iván [Eladio…]”, and neither her nor Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura find work given that they are his siblings.. 52