time frame for presenting its first report established in the operative paragraphs of this judgment. D. Other measures requested 104. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to implement measures of nonrepetition that included the necessary measures: “(i) to ensure that investigations into missing peoples reports comply with the standards established in [its] report in relation to the duty to respond immediately with efforts to determine the whereabouts of a person reported missing; (ii) to ensure that investigations into violent deaths comply with the duty to investigate with due diligence, as described in [its] report, and (iii) to enhance the capacity to investigate the deaths of human rights defenders in Guatemala, especially labor unionists, that may be related to their activities.” The representatives asked the Court to order the State to implement the measures of non-repetition requested by the Commission, and also a public act to acknowledge responsibility, and placement of a plaque in memory of Alexander Gómez Virula. 105. This Court considers that the handing down of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims. Therefore, it does not find it necessary to order the aforementioned additional measures, without prejudice to the State deciding to adopt them and grant them in the domestic sphere. E. Compensation 106. The Commission indicated that the State should provide full reparation for both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary damage caused by the human rights violations and should therefore “adopt […] measures of financial compensation.” The representatives asked the Court to order the State to pay financial compensation to the victim’s parents for pecuniary damage to cover both loss of earnings and consequential damage, and also for non-pecuniary damage. The State argued that “the events that harmed the integrity and life of Alexander Yovany Gómez Virula cannot be attributed [to the State] because the participation of agents of the State has never been demonstrated or proved.” E.1 Pecuniary damage 107. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept that pecuniary damage supposes the loss of, or detriment to, the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a monetary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.150 108. The representatives indicated that “since the day of the alleged victim’s disappearance, his parents took steps to report the fact to the government authorities, and also to find him in hospitals and detention centers.” This entailed expenses for transportation, in particular taxis in order to move as fast as possible, and this involved an expenditure of US$200.00. Then, following the discovery of their son’s body, they incurred expenses for his burial amounting to US$1,000.00. The representatives added that the alleged victim’s parents did not have vouchers to corroborate these expenses because some places did not issue them and because 23 years had passed and they no longer had them. They indicated that the alleged victim’s father did not receive a salary for one month because he stopped working, first because he had to take steps to report his son’s disappearance and, second, to take care of all the procedures relating to the burial and then to recover a little from the pain and Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 243. 150 27