344. Accordingly, as the Court has decided on other occasions, 405 these facts must be investigated effectively by means of proceedings held against those presumably responsible for the attacks on personal integrity that occurred. Consequently, the Court decides that the State must conduct a criminal investigation into the acts of torture committed against Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza in order to determine the eventual criminal responsibilities and, as appropriate, apply the punishments and consequences established by law. This obligation must be complied with within a reasonable time and taking into consideration the criteria established concerning investigations in this type of case. 406 Also, if the investigation into the said acts reveals procedural and investigative irregularities related to them, the pertinent disciplinary, administrative or criminal action must be undertaken. 407 D. Compensation D.1. Pecuniary damage 345. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established that this involves “the loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the facts of the case.” 408 D.1.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 346. The Commission considered that the State should “provide adequate pecuniary compensation for the human rights violations declared in the [Merits Report].” The representative asked the Court to compensate César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla, and their next of kin, “rationally, in equity, and taking into account the characteristics of each case.” She stated that, in the instant case, the consequential damage includes the expenses incurred by the respective families when visiting them and providing them with “essential items for their subsistence in prison.” In this regard, she indicated that it was not possible to provide documents verifying these expenses owing to the “informality […] that characterized [them] […].” She also asked the Court to order “pecuniary compensation that, from the time the sentence was imposed, accounts for loss of earnings as a result of imposing a life sentence prohibited by international human rights law.” 347. The State indicated that “the pecuniary claim made […is] obviously incompatible with the international standards in force.” Thus, it noted that the representative “had not provided even minimal documentary or arithmetic support for the figures indicated.” As for the loss of earnings, it underlined that the representative had not provided data considered relevant by the Inter-American Court for determining the amount of compensation for this concept, such as “what activities of a family, workplace, commercial, agricultural, industrial or any other nature had suffered deterioration […].” Also, regarding the compensation 405 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 174, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 215. 406 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 331, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 215. 407 Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 215. 408 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, para. 225. 108