the Court does not find it pertinent to order such measures of reparation again. 168. Regarding the other measures requested by the representatives, the Court does not find it appropriate to order them, because the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered herein are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victims in this case. H. Compensation 169. In general, the Commission asked that the State provide fair compensation for consequential damage, loss of earnings, and non-pecuniary damage. In its final written observations, the Commission referred to the payments that the State had made to some of the victims in compliance with the 2007 friendly settlement and indicated that those sums did not include “all the violations that have been examined by the Inter-American Court, which include the violations resulting from the displacement of victims, family separation and forced disappearances, as well as the continuation of the situation of impunity and the disappearances that have subsisted over the years.” 170. The representatives indicated that, in 2007, the parties signed a friendly settlement agreement in which the State undertook to pay 47,740 quetzals to each family group for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage owing to the loss of assets, and 91,740 quetzals to each family group for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and loss of earning in the case of the deceased victims. They added that, of the 263 families recognized in the agreement that should have been compensated, six did not receive the corresponding payment owing to documentation problems. In addition, they indicated that this payment did not cover some of the violations that are the subject of these proceedings243 or the violations committed following the payment of the amount in question, and they asked the Court to order the State to pay an additional amount for the concept of non-pecuniary damage. 171. The State recalled that the friendly settlement agreement signed on December 18, 2007, established a series of financial measures of reparation covering consequential damage, nonpecuniary damage and loss of earnings, symbolic reparation, and guarantees of non-repetition and the State undertook to comply with those measures. It indicated that, consequently, it had paid 14,407,360 quetzals to 251 family groups. Moreover, it indicated that, according to the settlement documents signed by the victims, they had agreed not to present any other financial claim in future. Therefore, it indicated that the alleged victims did not have a right to a second compensation. 172. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court will now establish the measures required to redress the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage derived from the violations declared in the preceding chapters. 173. Regarding the pecuniary damage, the Court has no evidence to prove the loss of earnings that the victims in this case suffered owing to the facts that fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. However, the Court finds that it is logical that, in cases such as this, obtaining evidence that proves this type of material loss and providing this to the Court is complex. In addition, it is evident that the human rights violations declared in this case necessarily had serious financial consequences. 174. Based on the criteria established in this Court’s consistent case law, the circumstances of this case, the significance, nature and severity of the violations committed, the harm caused by the impunity, and the physical, moral and mental suffering caused to the victims, the Court finds it In particular, they referred to “the violations derived from the forced displacement, forced disappearances, and family separations.” 243 49