treatment requested by the representatives, the Court considers that the said measures are not intrinsically related to the violations declared in this Judgment; therefore, it does not deem it pertinent to order them. Furthermore, it does not find it necessary to order the act of public acknowledgement of responsibility. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the delivery of this Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation, and considers that the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims. C) Reparations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 476. The Commission has requested the payment of “full compensation to the victims, or their heirs where applicable, that includes the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm caused, and the property that the victims left in the Dominican Republic at the time of their expulsion. 477. The representatives requested that, when establishing the pecuniary damage, the Court take into account the consequential damage and loss of earnings. They argued that “the victims were detained without being allowed to take with them any type of property, and especially documents that proved their possession or ownership of this.” They also indicated that, “owing to the way in which the expulsions were carried out, the victims had to abandon the few possessions they had, and could not recover them subsequently.” On this basis they asked the Court to “establish the sum that the State should pay [the victims] in […] equity.” They also alleged that “the victims in this case and the members of their family lost their income as a result of the violations suffered due to different circumstances,” and therefore asked that the Court establish a sum, in equity, in their favor. In addition, they asked the Court to order the State to “compensate the nonpecuniary damage caused to the members of the Medina Ferreras, Fils-Aimé, Jean, Gelin and Pérez Charles families who were detained and expelled, owing to the violations of their rights.” In this regard, they asked the Court to establish “the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) [for] each beneficiary” and the sum of US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for the family members of the presumed victims who were affected by the expulsion of their loved ones. 478. The State asked the Court to reject all the reparations, “because the assessment of the evidence in the case file, the arguments of the parties, and the Court’s consistent case law does not reveal that the State has incurred international responsibility and, thus, the right to reparation of any of the presumed victims has not arisen. It also argued that, “other than the statements of each victim, the representatives of the victims have not submitted evidence to substantiate the existence or the value of the property that they owned at the time of the events, or their occupations.” The State also considered that the assessment of eventual non-pecuniary damage by the representatives of the presumed victims was exaggerated and asked the Court to determine this based on its case law in this type of case. In addition, the State indicated that “when establishing the amounts for pecuniary compensation, the economic reality of the Dominican State should be taken into account, [because] following the global financial crisis, the country’s economic development has fallen behind, and this is why the amounts requested by the representatives of the presumed victims are not necessarily in keeping with the economic reality of the State.” C. 1. Pecuniary damage 479. The Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage in its case law and has established that it supposes “the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victims, the 148