108 302. The Court notices that the State did not differentiate between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in regard to the compensation derived from Law No. 9.140/95. Notwithstanding the abovementioned, the Court notes that the State did in fact pay compensation to the next of kin of 58 victims of enforced disappearance in the present case. In regard to Mr. Francisco Manoel Chaves and Mr. Pedro Matias de Oliveira (“Pedro Carretel”), no family members came forward to request recognition or compensation before the Special Commission established by Law No. 9.140/95.397 In regard to the next of kin of Mr. Hélio Luiz Navarro de Magalhães and Mr. Pedro Alexandrino de Oliveira Filho, the Court notes that although their mothers required information on them from the Special Commission, they did not wish to request compensation.398 303. The Court considers, as it has done in other cases,399 that of the national mechanisms that exist to determine forms of reparation, these procedures should be evaluated and encouraged. If these mechanisms do not satisfy standards of objectivity, reasonability, and effectiveness to properly repair the human rights violations declared by this Court, recognized in the Convention, the Court, in the exercise of its subsidiary and complimentary competence, should order the appropriate reparations. In this sense, it has been established that the next of kin of the disappeared victims had access to an administrative process, which determined compensation “of reparative purposes” for the enforced disappearances and deaths of the direct victims.400 The Court positively values the actions of the State in this sense and deems that the sums established by Law No. 9.140/95 and paid to the next of kin of the victims “for reparative purposes,” are reasonable in terms of its jurisprudence and assumes that this compensation includes both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the disappeared victims. On the other hand, in the cases where compensation has not been claimed by the next of kin of Mr. Francisco Manoel Chaves, Mr. Pedro Matias de Oliveira (“Pedro Carretel”), Mr. Hélio Luiz Navarro de Magalhães, and Mr. Pedro Alexandrino de Oliveira Filho, the Court requires the State to establish the possibility that in a period of six months as of the notification of the present Judgment, those interested, may present a request, if they so wish, for compensation using the criteria and mechanisms established in domestic law by Law No. 9.140/95. 304. On the other hand, in regard to medical and other expenses related to the search for their next of kin indicated by the representatives, the Court notes that receipts were not provided for these alleged expenses, neither was noted the particular harm suffered by each family member that would found such request, nor were each of the activities in which they participated or the costs incurred individualized. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court assumes that the next of kin of the victims incurred, since December 10, 1998, to date, among others, expenses related to medical services and care and those related to the search for information and the bodily remains of the disappeared victims to the present date. Based on the foregoing, the Court determines, in equity, the payment of US$ 3.000 (three thousand dollars of the United States of America) in 397 Cf. Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folios 792, 793, 840, and 841. 398 Cf. Compensation paid to the next of kin of the disappeared persons of the Guerrilha do Araguaia, supra note 93, folios 9112 and 9114, and Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folios 822, 823, 841, and 842. 399 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 18, para. 246. 400 Law No. 9.140/95, supra note 87, Article 11.