23 (supra paras. 5 and 16(c)) and in the application. On that opportunity, the alleged partner of María Tiu Tojín and father of Josefa was not identified as a victim in the present case, thus he cannot be considered an injured party. B) Compensations Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages 62. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence the concept of pecuniary damage76 and non-pecuniary damage,77 as well as the circumstances in which it must compensate it. 63. The Commission stated in its application that due to the implementation of the recommendations of report No. 71/04 and the agreement signed between the parties on August 8, 2008, “several of the next of kin of the victims have received payments” as compensation for the damages caused. It added that “it considers that the amounts for pecuniary compensation that have been agreed on through said process should be acknowledged as part of the reparation.” However, it indicated that the decisions adopted domestically do not bind the Tribunal, and therefore “the fair solution is that the Court […] declare the compensation amounts to which the victims in the present case are entitled and, upon issuing its judgment, it establish that the State can deduct the amounts mentioned […] corresponding to [any] payment made […] within the domestic realm for the same facts.” The representatives, in their final written arguments, added a proposal for a pecuniary compensation and the reimbursement of expenses and costs. Additionally, they indicated that they agreed with that stated by the Commission and they added that, based on “the background of the case, the economic compensation already delivered, and under the terms of this proposal it establish what is most convenient under the principle of equity.” reparations issued by the Inter-American Commission (dossier of annexes to the application, appendix 2, folios 381 and 382). 76 This Tribunal has established that pecuniary damage entails “the loss or impairment of the victim’s income, the expenses incurred in connection with the facts of the case and such pecuniary consequences as may have a causal link to the facts of the instant case.” Cfr. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 17, para. 221; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 127. 77 “[N]on-pecuniary damages may include the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and their next of kin, as well as the detriment to very significant personal values, as well as non-pecuniary alterations in the conditions of existence of the victim or their next of kin. Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damages, it can only be the object of compensation […] through payment of an amount of money or the delivery of goods or services that may be valued in monetary terms, which the Tribunal will establish […] in terms of equity, as well as through the realization of acts or works that are public in their scope or effects, which result in the acknowledgment of the victim’s dignity and avoid the repetition of violations to human rights.” Cfr. Case of Neira Alegría v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, supra note 21, para. 239; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 164.