36 remedies112 and other kinds of evidence that are not found in the case file of this case. c.2.3 The alleged “reckless conduct” of the State on not reaching an agreement in the friendly settlement process and for questioning the reparatory amounts proposed by the representative 123. On the other hand, the representative also indicated that “the reckless conduct of the State and SEDAPAL [on] having given the victims false hope of a friendly settlement that was never delivered and an implementation [...] that was never fulfilled.” In addition, for the representative, that reckless conduct by the State and the company are evidence that “far from expressing a sentiment of repentance and desire for amendment with regard to the violations perpetrated, [...], they question the reparation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in an attempt to reduce them to a minimum.” 124. On this point, the Tribunal finds it necessary to recall that the friendly settlement proceeding before the Inter-American Commission does not require any of the parties to reach an agreement. In this sense, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission itself include the possibility that one of the parties might not offer their consent to a potential agreement and establishes the continuation of the case as part of the proceeding. 113 Thus the fact that an agreement has not been reached in the context of a friendly settlement proceeding in this case is not any sort of violation of the American Convention, and in that sense it does not imply any obligation to provide reparations on the part of the State. The Tribunal recalls that not all positions taken within the context of a proceeding before the Commission automatically generate acknowledgment of facts or responsibility, or the assumption of corresponding obligations. 125. The Court also notes that the questioning of the amounts requested for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is related to the adversarial principle and does not constitute an autonomous violation that would establish an obligation for the State to provide reparations for the victims, nor is it a factor to be taken into account in establishing the amount of non-pecuniary damages in this case. c.2.4 The alleged effects on victims’ life plans 126. Finally, the representative alleged that the life plans of the victims had been affected, indicating that, “at issue is not only the damage that could be caused by the deduction of 20% of monthly remunerations. Adding up the damages suffered we have 25% less in the monthly salary as a result of the omission of a raise in remunerations as of July 1992, plus the 20% decrease in the monthly salary starting in the month of December 1992, plus the 20% deduction in the monthly salary starting in March 1993 for [recovering] the - according to the State - improper payments made between January and November of 1992. We have a total of 65% of the monthly salary that the workers/victims were not receiving. If one adds taxes of 20%, we have a grand total of 85% of the [v]ictims [r]emunerations that have been affected. For the representative, 112 In this regard, and in a similar sense, in its Admisssibility and Merits Report the Inter-American Commission noted that “in regard to the alleged arbitrary laying off of Mr. Luis Humberto Tori Gentille, the IACHR noted that the information provided by the parties up until the date of approvel of the present Report, the result is that the legal proceeding is in process before the 34th Civil Court of Lima. Therefore, the IACHR considers that the domestic remedies have not been exahusted to which it must dem this argument inadmissible.” Report N° 8/09 of March 17, 2009, supra note 3, folio 12. 113 Therefore, Article 40 fo the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commision on Human Rights stated that: “[t]he friendly settlement procedure shall be initiated and continue on the basis of the consent of the parties.” Likewise, it notes that “[t]he Commission may terminate its intervention in the friendly settlement procedure if it finds that the matter is not susceptible to such a resolution or any of the parties does not consent to its application, decides not to continue it, or does not display the willingness to reach a friendly settlement based on the respect for human rights”. Therefore, “[i]f no friendly settlement is reached, the Commission shall continue to process the petition or case.”