8 33. The Commission then requested that the Court "rule on the federal clause and the scope of the obligations of the Argentine State in the reparations phase under that federal clause." The Commission also noted that those responsible for the disappearance of Mr. Garrido and Mr. Baigorria had not been punished. It argued that the obligations of the State in matters of reparation require more than a mere inquiry into the facts; an essential element is the punishment of those responsible. The Commission noted that the report prepared by the ad hoc Commission (supra, 20 and 21) was very important, and concluded by stating the following: … we believe that an essential part of the moral damages that the Honorable Court should order is that the Argentine State publicize the report of the ad hoc Commission and the findings as widely as possible and, basically, should call upon the Argentine government to carry out all the recommendations contained in the report of the ad hoc Commission. 34. Argentina stated that it had no objection to the compensatory damages that the Mendoza arbitral tribunal had ordered for the victims’ relatives, but that "it will comply with the amounts that the Honorable Court sets." It also stated that it had undertaken an obligation to publish the report prepared by the ad hoc commission, which it would do as soon as the Court had delivered its judgment. Argentina argued, however, that it had "difficulties" with the measures to be adopted vis-a-vis the judges who had presided over the inquiry into the whereabouts of the disappeared persons, because it was a federal state and the judges were members of the judicial branch of government, which was independent. 35. At the hearing, the representative of the victims’ relatives made a statement, which was accompanied by a written memorial which he then submitted to the Court. In the matter of compensatory damages, for the family of Adolfo Garrido he requested the sum of 20,000 pesos or its equivalent in United States dollars for the expenses incurred since 1992 in their efforts to find the victim, 380,250 pesos in lost income, and 500,000 pesos in moral damages. For the family of Raúl Baigorria, he sought 20,000 pesos for expenses, 399,000 pesos in lost earnings, and 500,000 pesos in moral damages. The representative of the victims’ families noted that the individuals claiming damages in Mr. Garrido’s case were his mother and his siblings; in Mr. Baigorria’s case, only his siblings. The attorney also requested that the Court order payment of fees for himself and for his colleague Diego Lavado, but did not specify an amount. He stated that both had worked on the case since 1991, first in proceedings before the Mendoza courts, then before the Commission, and now before this Court. Speaking for himself and his colleague, he stated the following: … we hereby swear that we have not received any payment of expenses or fees from anyone: not from the Argentine State, not from our clients, and not from any international or nongovernmental organization. We have defrayed all our expenses using our own funds. I am also seeking reimbursement of the expenses I incurred to travel to this country for this hearing, and am leaving all necessary vouchers and receipts with the Secretariat. Mr. Varela also requested that the Court put an end to the impunity thus far enjoyed by the police officers who had been instrumental in the disappearance of Mr. Garrido and Mr. Baigorria.