122 positive contribution toward bringing the State into compliance with its obligations under Article 19 of the American Convention. 266. Based on the evidence compiled during the case and bearing the above considerations in mind, the Court will now analyze the claims submitted by the Commission and by the representatives in the matter of reparations. It will first determine who the beneficiaries of the reparations are, and then order the measures of reparation aimed at redressing pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, other forms of reparation and, lastly, the matter of costs and expenses. A) BENEFICIARIES 267. The Court will now summarize the arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State on who should be regarded as the beneficiaries of any reparations the Court might order. Pleadings of the Commission 268. The Commission asserted the following with regard to the beneficiaries: a) all the victims deprived of their liberty at the ‘Panchito López’ Reeducation Institute in the period from August 14, 1996 to July 25, 2001, must be compensated both individually and collectively; b) all the victims who perished or were injured in the three fires that the present case involves can be identified; the many children and adolescents deprived of their liberty at the Center at various times can also be identified, as can all the juveniles who were interned at the Center at the time of its permanent closing in July 2001 and later transferred; and c) the victims are not unidentifiable, as there are a number of ways to identify them individually and personally. Therefore, the Commission reasoned, it is not seeking anonymous reparations, but rather reparations for each and every victim. Pleadings of the representatives 269. The representatives stated that the beneficiaries of the reparations are all the inmates who were interned in the Center at any time in the period between August 14, 1996 and July 25, 2001. However, in the case of the twelve deceased inmates, the beneficiaries would be their next of kin. Pleadings of the State 270. The State asked the Court to consider as beneficiaries only those persons named in the application and in the Court’s order of June 21, 2002, in keeping with the Court’s Rules of Procedure and jurisprudence. Consequently, should reparations be ordered, they would be on an individual basis; the State argued that under Article 33(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission was to have identified the alleged victims by name. Considerations of the Court