disregarded the indigenous peoples’ claim to the land filed with the INDI and, according to the State’s own specialized domestic agencies, it should be considered null (supra para. 181 and 161). 313. Consequently, the State must take the measures necessary to ensure that Decree No. 11,804 is not an obstacle to returning the traditional land to the members of the Community. * * * 314. With regard to the other measures of reparation requested by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief,311 the Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the consequences of the violations suffered. 6. Compensation 6.1. Pecuniary damage 315. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that pecuniary damage entails “loss or harm to the income of the victim, the expenses incurred owing to the facts, and the consequences of a monetary nature that have a causal relationship with the facts of the case.”312 316. The Commission indicated that, to determine the pecuniary damage, the Court must take into account the cosmovision of the Community and the effect on its members and their cosmovision of not having possession of their traditional habitat that, among other consequences, has prevented them from carrying out their traditional subsistence activities. The representatives asked the Court to establish, in equity, a compensatory amount for pecuniary damage taking into account that the members of the Community and its leaders have had to undertake numerous measures and travel a great deal during the years that the land claim action has lasted. The State considered that there is no relationship between the Community’s petition on the compensation claimed and the facts denounced. 317. The Court finds that the actions and the measures taken by the Community generated expenses that must be considered as consequential damage, in particular with regard to the actions or the measures taken to claim their land, because the leaders or members had to travel in order to carry out these procedures. However, the Court observes that no documents and receipts were submitted to support the expenses incurred. 318. Consequently, the Court, in equity, establishes the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) as compensation for travel-related expenditure. This sum must be delivered to the leaders of the Community within two years of notification 311 The representatives requested: (i) the establishment of a scholarship fund for secondary and university education for the youth of the Xákmok Kásek Community (ii) the establishment of a project fund to strengthen the culture and languages of the Enxent, Angaité, and Sanapaná peoples of the Paraguayan Chaco, to be implemented with the participation of the Xákmok Kásek Community and other communities of the Lower Chaco, and (iii) the establishment of a consultation mechanism for indigenous peoples and/or communities, with regulations for implementing the provisions of ILO Convention 169, to ensure their participation in State procedures that affect their interests. 312 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of the “Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 275, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 261. 72