70 Arguments of the State 71. The State indicated that: a) It cannot deny the need to compensate the pecuniary and “nonpecuniary” damage caused to the victims and their next of kin from the Plan de Sánchez village, which is irreparable; b) The process of paying financial reparation should begin in 2005, so that it is duly programmed and planned in the 2005 General Budget of Income and Expenditure of the Nation. In implementing this process, the magnitude of the needs and rights that the State must guarantee to all its inhabitants must be taken into account, and also the criteria established by the Court, in the sense that the amount of the reparations should not make the victims or their successors either richer or poorer; and c) The financial reparations decided must be executed within the framework of the National Compensation Program, in accordance with the rules of domestic legislation. Article 1 of Government Agreement No. 2582003 of the President of the Republic, published in the official gazette on May 8, 2003, stipulates that the specific purpose of the program is “to compensate the victims of human rights violations that took place during the internal armed conflict.” It has also been established that the beneficiaries of the program include those resulting from cases that were submitted to the InterAmerican Commission prior to the plan, and that are pending a ruling. Considerations of the Court 72. In this section, the Court will determine the pecuniary damage and, in this regard, it will establish a compensatory amount that seeks to compensate the patrimonial consequences of the violations declared in this judgment.254 To do this, it will take into account the evidence gathered in this case, its own case law, and the arguments of the Commission, the representatives and the State. 73. The Court considers that it has been proved that, among the acts of violence committed by State agents subsequent to March 9, 1987, when Guatemala accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, the agricultural and employment activities of the victims of Plan de Sánchez, and also the villages of Chipuerta, Joya de Ramos, Raxjut, Volcanillo, Coxojabaj, Las Tunas, Las Minas, Las Ventanas, Ixchel, Chiac, Concul and Chichupac, were affected. In this regard, the CEH report indicated that: As a result of the armed conflict, the conditions of physical existence of the indigenous communities were affected, in the context of an acute and institutionalized indigenous poverty in rural areas and the lack of laws and social policies that protected and granted land to the indigenous communities. This translated into financial shortages of different types, the impossibility of acceding to resources for subsistence, dispossession, or forced abandonment of land, and habitat deterioration, among other damage. […] 254 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 283; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 251, para. 205, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 236.