address this aspect. The State noted that national authorities have “taken measures of various kinds to comply with the ruling of the Constitutional Court.” 146. The Court notes that the representatives did not demonstrate the existence of impediments to the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible, to which said request lacks a causal connection with the violations declared in this ruling. D. Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages 147. The Commission considered it “relevant that there be reparation for the consequences produced by the lack of compliance of the judgment, by means of the payment of a compensation for the damages caused in the case” and requested that the Court, “notwithstanding any claims that the victim may make at the appropriate stage in the proceedings," set an amount, in equity, as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, in exercise of its broad authority in this matter. 108 requested that the Court establish the amount of US$ 148. The representatives 358,033.59 (three hundred and fifty-eight thousand thirty-three dollars of the United States of America and fifty-nine cents) established "by the State itself" and that it order the State to pay the victim that amount, to which "should be added only the difference resulting between June 2009 and October 2010 in which Mr. Mejía Idrovo was reinstated to active service," to the concept of reparation of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage. The representatives emphasized that the State has never complied with the second point of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of October 2009, because the State made a payment of US$570,772.68 (five hundred and seventy thousand, seven hundred seventy-two dollars of the United States of America and sixty-eight cents), "nonetheless, it did not [specify] that this payment was made in favor of the victim as ordered in the judgment, but made in favor of the [Armed Forces Social Security Institute of Ecuador] [(hereinafter "ISSFA")]. Likewise, the representatives requested that the Court, "in equity, set an amount for the concept of extra patrimonial reparation that the victim's next of kin should receive." 149. The State argued that "the alleged victim, in a systematic way, has refused to recognize the efforts of the State regarding a potential reparation.” It added that "the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, as well as the Prosecutor General of the State in the specific field of their competence, have received the refusal of Mr. Mejía Idrovo to accept the amounts calculated by the corresponding entities.” The State asserted that "through the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, the ISSFA, and the Ministry of Defense, it has made, and at present is making the greatest efforts to provide reparation to the citizen Mejía Idrovo according to the decision of the Constitutional Court" and that "it committed itself with the Inter-American Court to inform [...] on the severance payments being carried out in the ISSFA. In this regard, the State expressed that "it heeded to the creation of a multidisciplinary [c]ommission, which has met on three occasions, in order to establish the total compensatory amount whose final value" was US$ 358,033.59 (three hundred and 108 Attached are the corresponding supporting documents (annexes to the brief of pleadings, motions No. 70, 71 and 72, fs 1983 to 2000). 43