training for judicial and prosecution officials on the incompatibility between the Amnesty Law and the American Convention and the lack of legal effects on the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the human rights violations during the armed conflict. Regarding this request, the Court observes that it was not submitted at the correct procedural moment that is, in the brief submitting the case to the Court; consequently, it is time-barred and will not be considered.529 D. Compensation 1) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 379. The Commission requested adequate reparation for both the pecuniary and nonpecuniary aspects of the human rights violations. 380. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to compensate the damage caused to the victims of the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places and their next of kin, based on the violations to their rights committed after June 6, 1995. In this regard, they asked the Court establish in equity the amount corresponding to each beneficiary for the damage caused; namely: (a) owing to “the lack of investigation of the facts due to the application of the Amnesty Law and the situation of impunity of the grave acts that occurred during the massacres.” This reparation must be provided to both the surviving victims and the next of kin of the victims murdered in the massacres; (b) owing to “the scale of the massacre, as well as the knowledge that those responsible continue free and are even the object of tributes[, which] ha[d] resulted in suffering for the next of kin that survived, even when their relationship is not that close,” and (c) owing to “the suffering caused due to the situation of displacement in which [the surviving victims] were forced to live for years, as well as the loss of their basic possessions, such as their homes and their means of subsistence, which they were never able to recover.” 381. The State did not refer to these measures of reparation. 382. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it must be compensated. The Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes the loss of or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.530 For its part, international case law has repeatedly established that the judgment may constitute per se a form of reparation.531 Furthermore, in its case law, the Court has developed the concept of non-pecuniary damage and has established that “it may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and his next of kin, the harm to values that are very significant to the individual, as well as the alterations, of a non-pecuniary nature, in the living conditions of the victim or his family.”532 In the instant case, the representatives did not argue a specific concept in relation to the alleged pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and did not present evidence that proves the estimated costs of the said damage. 383. The Court does not have any evidence to prove the loss of earnings and the consequential losses suffered by the victims in this case. However, the Court considers it logical that, in cases such as this one, gathering evidence to prove this type of material loss and submitting it to the Court is a complex task. In addition, it is evident that the human rights 529 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, para. 359, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 221. 530 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 310. 531 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs, para. 35, and Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, para. 319. 532 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 307. 117