307. The representatives asked the Court to order the State “to adopt domestic measures that grant practical effects to the right to juridical personality that was violated with regard to Narciso González by his forced disappearance.” 335 In addition, they requested the adoption of other measures of reparation relating to non-repetition, as well as reparations regarding the alleged violation of access to information, as did the Inter-American Commission. 336 308. Regarding the request for measures relating to the right to juridical personality of Narciso González Medina, the Court observes that the representatives did not indicate the specific measures required when making this request for reparation and, above all, did not describe the rights and obligations possessed by Mr. González Medina that his family have been prevented from exercising on his behalf. Therefore, the Court considers that the representatives did not provide grounds for the specific need for the requested measures of reparation, so that, as it has in another case, 337 the Court finds them inadmissible. 309. Moreover, regarding the other measures of reparation requested, the Court considers that the delivery of this Judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victims and does not find it necessary to order the said measures. 338 D) Compensation D.1) Pecuniary damage 310. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it must be compensated. This Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes “the loss or harm to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred owing to the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal connection to the facts of the case.” 339 311. The Commission asked the Court to establish, in equity, the amount of compensation corresponding to the pecuniary damage resulting from the violations alleged in the application. 335 In particular, the representatives indicated that, in order to repair “the damage” caused by the violation of Article 3 of the American Convention, the State should be ordered to take “the procedural measures and the civil remedies necessary to rectify the ‘legal limbo’ of the rights and obligations possessed by Narciso González, in order to protect the rights of his family as well as of other families of individuals who have been victims of forced disappearance.” 336 The representatives requested the “adoption of adequate protocols to identify the osseous remains, as well as psychological counseling for the family in the procedures for the identification of corpses”; the “creation of special units of the Public Prosecution Service and the Judiciary to investigate complaints of grave human rights violations and the assignment of adequate resources”; “public access to State archives in keeping with the relevant international standards”; the “adoption of a public and accessible mechanism to register detainees in the places where those who are accused of an offense are detained before being brought before the competent judge,” and the “establishment of a lecture hall in the Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo, as well as the creation of a grant, in memory and recognition of the work of Narciso González.” For its part, the Commission asked the Court to order the Dominican State “to organize the State apparatus to comply with the requirements of the right to information,” which involves “promoting a culture of transparency and guaranteeing the effectiveness of the remedies to make it possible to demand the right of access to information.” 337 Cf. Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 52, para. 205. 338 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 359, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 220. 339 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra note 70, para. 114. 92