the Judiciary’s human resources system, except in the case of the sanction of dismissal which shall be imposed by the appointing authority.” According to Article 66, the disciplinary process against any employee or official of the Judiciary begins with a complaint that must be filed before the appointing authority or any other judicial authority. Once the process is initiated, the Civil Service Law of the Judicial Branch guarantees procedural immediacy. 148. Continuing with the procedure, the appointing authority must summon the parties to a hearing within a period no longer than 15 days, so that they may present their respective evidence. At this hearing, the employee may be accompanied by an attorney and present all evidence. Once the process is completed, the employee may make use of several administrative remedies of review, revocation and appeal in order to challenge the decision. The State added that, on the issue of public service in general, there is a Civil Service Law, in force since 1969, which regulates the minimum guarantees in favor of public servants. With regard to dismissal, Articles 79 of this law and 80 of its regulations guarantee that all public servants who are subject to dismissal proceedings may exercise their right of defense and present exculpatory evidence, thus guaranteeing due process. 149. Thus, the State concluded that the Court should not accede to the reparations requested by the Commission regarding the measure of non-repetition on the application of the rules of due process in the context of proceedings for the dismissal of public officials, since such rules already exist in the domestic legal system. 150. With respect to the adaptation of the legislation concerning prior voting to go on strike, the State reiterated that Article 241(c) of the Labor Code was amended in 2001, reducing the voting requirement of two-thirds to half plus one. Therefore, the State has already adapted its legislation on this point. 151. The Court recognizes and appreciates the progress made by the State in relation to the guarantees of non-repetition. In this regard, as it has done in other cases, the Court deems it appropriate for the State to continue implementing these measures, but does not consider it necessary to monitor compliance in the context of this specific case. Therefore, in relation to these requests for measures of non-repetition, the Court considers that the issuance of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victims. F. Compensation 152. In general terms, the Commission requested that the State make full reparation for the human rights violations declared in its Merits Report, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In its final oral arguments during the public hearing, the victims’ representative calculated the loss of earnings for each of the 65 victims at USD$ 272,000.00 (two hundred and seventy-two thousand United States dollars). 153. The State considered that, since the pleadings and motions brief was filed extemporaneously, no evidence was provided to prove the harm allegedly suffered by the victims. F.1. Pecuniary damage 154. This Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage in its case law and has established that this encompasses the loss of or detriment to the income of the victim, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have 41