152. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to: (i) hold an act to acknowledge international responsibility; (ii) conduct the “investigation, determination of responsibility and appropriate sanction of those who had violated the human rights of Judge Urrutia Laubreaux”; (iii) disseminate the academic paper written by Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux and the internal judicial decisions by all possible media; (iv) comply with the proposals made by Judge Urrutia Laubreaux in his academic paper; (v) create a public policy within the Chilean Judiciary in order to implement a system of continuous training for judge by workshops and courses on the application of human rights standards in the domestic sphere, and prepare guidelines on the matter, especially on: freedom of thought and expression, control of conventionality, and transitional justice; (vi) create a human rights and gender directorate within the Judiciary responsible for heading the internal human rights policy; (vii) incorporate into Chilean law the obligation of judges to apply international human rights law in all cases under their jurisdiction; (viii) create a “working group on the transformation of the disciplinary regime of the Judiciary in Chile, that respects the principle of legality and due process of law,” and (ix) create a “constitutional autonomous organ, other than those that carry out jurisdictional functions, to be responsible for disciplinary procedures against judges.” 153. The State indicated, with regard to the first four measures, that since the Supreme Court had returned “the legal situation of Judge Urrutia to the situation immediately prior to the delivery of the judgment that issued a disciplinary sanction against him,” they were inappropriate. In the case of the other measures, it indicated that they were inappropriate for the following reasons: the Judicial Academy “has a policy of continuous training addressed exclusively at judicial officials […] under a professional development program and a training program, the contents of which include international human rights standards”; the Supreme Court had created three administrative units that manage human rights matters related to the Judiciary integrally and they include the Gender and Human Rights Secretariat, and “Chilean legislation includes constitutional laws that ensure that the domestic courts apply the international human rights treaties signed by, and in force in, Chile to decide specific cases that are submitted to their consideration.” 154. First, the Court recalls that the sanction imposed on Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux has been eliminated from his personnel record. Second, some of the reparations requested have no causal nexus to this case. Lastly, regarding the other reparations requested by the representatives, the Court considers that the delivery of this judgment, the reparations ordered in this chapter, and those already accorded internally are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victim. Therefore, the Court does not find it necessary to order those additional measures, without prejudice to the State deciding to adopt them and grant them at the domestic level. Compensation 155. The Commission asked the Court to order Chile “to provide comprehensive reparation for the violations declared in the report, including for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.” 156. In general, the State indicated that “the request for payment of compensation was not appropriate […] because it b[ore] no relationship to the purpose of the proceedings and ha[d] not been proved.” E.1 Pecuniary damage 157. 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, 38