102 pecuniary damage and moral prejudice inflicted upon the victim and the victim’s representatives.” The State further contended that “ordinary criminal law provisions also apply[, in respect of which,] in the event of civil damages awarded in a criminal action, compensation for the damage caused to the aggrieved party is covered, in addition to the restitution of property.” On the other hand, the Commission stated that the compensation paid had been awarded “to the victims, but not to their next of kin, as civil damages to compensate for the harm caused.” 209. In their final plea, the representatives stated that “such payment does not mean that the State has in [any] way fulfilled its international obligation to make reparation for the damage caused through adequate compensation[; that such payment] failed to meet the requirements established by the Inter-American Court’s case law for damages compensation […] as […] it was effected on a partial basis[,] since it is yet unclear on what account it was made [and] because the compensation thus paid does not cover the damage caused after the awarding judgment was issued[, i.e. it only accounted] for the timespan between the occurrence of the facts and the issue of the judgment.” Moreover, in its final plea, the State claimed that “in the Peruvian legal system, civil reparation awarded through a criminal judgment is payable [only] to the aggrieved party’s legal heirs.” In turn, in its final plea, the Commission merely noted that the payment ordered to be made to the victims’ legal heirs through the CSJM’s Judgment was actually effected, even though such heirs were prevented from appearing as civil parties in the military proceeding. 210. In this regard, the Court considers that the civil reparation awarded through said CSJM judgment was granted on account of the damage caused to the ten victims that were executed and caused to disappear –the “aggrieved parties,” in the language of the judgment– and that said compensation did not provide redress for damage directly caused to their next of kin, who were paid the aforementioned amounts in their capacity as the victims’ next of kin. Moreover, it is the Court’s opinion that the elements of the body of evidence do not show on what account such “civil damages” were awarded, as the legislation invoked before the Court deals with “pecuniary damage or moral prejudice” – in the case of military criminal law – and “damages” – in civil legislation. Put differently, said legislation does not clearly show which specific damage was sought to be redressed through the payment ordered. However, and due to the fact that payment has already been made, the Court will take it into consideration for the purposes of setting reparations in this Judgment, as compensation for the monetary aspects of both the pecuniary and non pecuniary damage sustained by the ten victims that were executed or caused to disappear. Therefore, the timespan covered by said civil damages is irrelevant, as indicated by the representatives. * * * 211. Moreover, the State argued that “in order to comprehensively address the harms the Peruvian population has been subjected to, [the Truth and Reconciliation Commission] submitted a series of recommendations, obviously including those to the effect that the State establish a policy for reparations[, which] are to be […] applied and interpreted in the light of a law recently enacted last year and adopting the key recommendation to […] establish a comprehensive reparations program, which […] will allow the adoption and application of collective reparation measures as well as, following the creation of a central victims’ register, measures to provide monetary compensation individually to the victims’ next of kin. This is part of a very important process which cannot, however, […] be implemented over a shorter period of time.”