353. Based on the above, taking into account this Court’s case law 351 and that the different judicial proceedings analyzed are still pending judgment, the Court establishes that the State must continue, and conduct with the greatest diligence and within a reasonable time, the criminal investigations into the facts analyzed in this judgment. To this end, the State must undertake in all seriousness all the necessary actions to identify, prosecute, and as appropriate, punish the perpetrators and participants in those facts. However, the Court determines that this measure of reparation will only be monitored in relation to the criminal proceedings concerning the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo. G. Request for compensation for the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo 354. The representatives requested reparation for pecuniary damage in relation to the economic losses caused to the members of Félix Ordóñez Suazo’s family due to his murder which occurred in the context of the conflict. They also requested reparation for loss of earnings and non-pecuniary damages for the psychological consequences suffered by the members of the murdered victim’s family and the community leaders who had been threatened. 355. The State rejected, in general terms, the claims for compensation submitted in the pleadings and motions brief. 356. The Commission did not refer to this measure of reparation. 357. In the instant case, the Court did not find the State responsible for the violation of the obligation to ensure the right to life of Félix Ordóñez Suazo. Consequently, in the absence of a causal nexus with the violations that have been proved, it is not appropriate to award compensation for loss of earnings and non-pecuniary damage as requested by the representatives. H. Costs and expenses 358. The representatives indicated that the State must reimburse the costs and expenses incurred by the members of the community during the processing of the case before the Commission and the Court. In their final written arguments, the representatives indicated that the costs and expenses amounted to US$90,000.00 (ninety thousand United States dollars). 359. The State indicated that it trusted that, when the dispute had been decided, the Court would recognize to the party who prevailed the right to reimbursement of any expenses that it might have incurred as a result of the proceedings; however, should the Court find that the parties had reasonable grounds for litigating, it trusted that they would be exempt from such payment. 360. The Commission did not refer to this measure of reparation. Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 441, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al., supra, para. 155. 351 97