should the alleged judicial error be found. Likewise, regarding the family therapy service, it indicated that it is inadmissible, since Mr. Gorigoitía’s next of kin of are not named as victims in the international proceeding. Similarly, regarding the request for a scholarship for Nicolás Gorigoitía, it argued the request was inadmissible because he is not named as a victim in the international proceeding. 77. The Court reiterates that it will not consider Mr. Gorigoitía's wife and three children as injured parties in this case because they were not included as alleged victims in the Report on the Merits (supra para. 22). Likewise, this Court finds that, regarding the aforementioned measures of reparation, the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victim. Therefore, it does not consider it necessary to order these additional measures, without prejudice to whether the state may decide to adopt and grant them domestically. D. Compensation D.1 Pecuniary damage 78. The Commission asked that full reparations be provided for the pecuniary damage caused. The representatives asked that the economic difficulties suffered by Mr. Gorigoitía and his family be taken into account. In this sense, they noted that the criminal process and the circumstances of the case forever changed the lives of all the members of the family. They highlighted that their relatives had to help them financially and even ask for food from the Municipality. They also indicated that one daughter dropped out of school to help the family. In addition to this, the representatives requested that the salaries not received from the moment of his detention to the age of retirement be taken into account, in accordance with the legislation in force on that date, as well as the amounts he would have received if he had retired. Therefore, they asked the Court to set pecuniary damages at USD 70,000.00 (seventy thousand dollars of the United states of America). 79. The state argued that the request for pecuniary reparations based on loss of earnings, comprised of the salary that he should have received as a police officer and similar claims, is inadmissible, since the alleged lack of access to a broad appeal could never have had the legal result of the overturning of the criminal conviction, as it was not arbitrary and its content was not in dispute. In this regard, it stated that it is inadmissible to establish compensation based on wages not received, and that rather it should be determined in equity based on lost opportunity that made it impossible for Mr. Gorigoitía to exercise his right to appeal. It also reiterated that compensation on the premise that the alleged victim should have been acquitted would not be in accordance with the law, since jurisdiction to decide on this matter falls exclusively to domestic courts. In addition to the foregoing, the state maintained that the representatives did not provide documentary support to justify the figures indicated. 80. In its case law, this Court has developed the concept that pecuniary damage supposes the loss of, or detriment 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 nexus with the facts of the case.102 In the instant case, the Court has determined that Mr. Gorigoitía's right to appeal the conviction, pursuant to Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, was violated (supra paras. 47 to 53). The result was that he was given a sentence of a lifetime ban from public service, a sentence that he was not able to appeal. However, in this case, it is impossible to establish with certainty how the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention resulted in indirect damage or loss of future earnings to the detriment of Mr. Gorigoitía. Therefore, the Court does not find it appropriate to Cfr. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 92. 102 23