78 Reparations shall not, in any case, entail either impoverishment of the victim or his or her family.149 the enrichment or the 211. In light of the evidence gathered throughout the proceedings and the abovementioned criteria, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives and the considerations of the State regarding reparations, in order to determine first the beneficiaries of the reparations and then, to order the necessary measures to redress the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage sustained in the instant case, and to adopt measures of satisfaction and non-repetition and finally to award court costs and expenses, 212. The Court will now summarize the arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State concerning reparations. Arguments of the Commission 213. Regarding to reparations, the Commission argued, inter alia, that: a) the beneficiaries of the reparations are Albertina Viana-Lopes, victim’s mother; Francisco Leopoldino-Lopes, victim’s father; Irene Ximenes-Lopes-Miranda, victim’s sister; and Cosme Ximenes-Lopes, victim’s identical twin. b) In relation to pecuniary damage: i. the Commission requested the Court to determine, on equitable grounds, the amount of the compensation for compensatory damage and lost profits , and ii. regarding to lost profits, the Commission observed that there was no loss of income concerning the disability pension the victim received from the National Institute of Social Security until his death. However, it pointed out that the victim could perform productive activities in the future to increase his income. c) In relation to non-pecuniary damage: i. the Court must determine in equity the payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, taking into account the level of suffering and distress sustained by the victim’s next of kin as a result of the death of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes, and for the struggle for justice, and ii. the life death pension paid monthly to Albertina Viana-Lopes is inadequate as reparation of non-pecuniary damage, as the State failed to consider all the aspects entailed in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and it also failed to comply with the international standards of compensation for human rights violations. d) In relation to other forms of reparation, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to: 149 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 177; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4 para. 198; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 4, para. 297.