92 close to Petatlán and Coyuca de Catalán for technical training in forestry and community management of natural resources, iii) to change the present name of “Premio al Mérito Ecológico – Categoría Social” (Award on Ecological Merit – Social Category”) to “Premio al Mérito Ecológico – Campesinos Ecologistas de Guerrero” (Award on Ecological Merit – Guerrero Ecologist Peasants), and iv) to adopt measures to reunite the family of Montiel Cortés. 247. In the first place, regarding these requests, the Court considers that the issuing of the present Judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate for the reparation of the violations suffered by the victims.352 On the other hand, the Tribunal has considered that several issues raised by the representatives were not included by the Commission in its application; therefore, due to procedural reasons, they were not assessed in the merits of this case. Finally, in this respect, the Court reiterates that reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case and the violations declared (supra para. 209). Therefore, the Tribunal shall not rule on the request of reparations related to facts that, due to procedural reasons, were not addressed by the Court in the instant Judgment. D. Compensatory damages D.1 Pecuniary damage 248. The Tribunal has developed in its case law the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that pecuniary damage involve “the loss of or detriment to the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the monetary consequences that have a casual nexus with the facts of the case.”353 249. The Commission asked the Court, “[n]otwithstanding any claims that the representatives of the victims may make at the appropriate stage in the proceedings,” ”and in exercise of its broad authority, to set an amount as compensation for damnum emergens and lucrum cessans based on the principle of equity.” 250. The representatives pointed out that as a direct consequence of the violations suffered, the victims lost their croplands which they tilled together with their relatives. According to the representatives, Mr. Cabrera García worked on agriculture, had a house and a plot of land of two (2) hectares which he used for sowing and whose produce was used for family consumption and sale. Although the land was subject to a collective landownership system (the “ejido” – area of common land), the representatives sustained that “for all practical purposes, they belonged to [Mr. Cabrera García].” As regards Mr. Montiel Flores, the representatives indicated that Mr. Montiel Flores worked on tilling the land whose permit was obtained from the common land community [comunidad ejidal], an activity that he complemented by selling clothes together with his wife on Sundays and breeding porks for sale. These activities generated a variable income, but, in general, it was $ 800.00 Mexican pesos monthly for selling pork and $ 2,500.00 for selling clothes, i.e. $ 3,300.00 Mexican pesos, namely $ 39,600.00 Mexican pesos annually, equivalent to US$ 2,995.18 American dollars. The representatives alleged 352 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 359; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 238; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 267. 353 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 270; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 260.