69 that ordered in said Judgment in the procedure for monitoring of compliance.266 D. Compensation D.1 Pecuniary damages 261. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence the concept of pecuniary damages and the situations in which it shall be compensated.267 262. The Commission requested the Court to adequately repair the next of kin of the victim, including both the moral and the material aspects.” The representatives made specific requests regarding the pecuniary damages that include the loss of earnings and the consequential damages. In turn, the State “acknowledge[d] the right that Encarnación, Pedro, Eliseo[,and] Estermerio[, as well as] María Rosaura, all of last name Chitay Rodríguez, might be entitled to an economic reparation for the [p]ecuniary or [n]on pecuniary damages caused by the disappearance of Mr. Florencio Chitay Nech.” Nevertheless, it considered that the amount sought exceeded the calculations considered by the State. i. Consequential damages. 263. The representatives argued that the Chitay Rodríguez family, “due to the persecution and […] disappearance of Mr. [Chitay Nech], incurred several expenses and loss of several assets.” They added that, “the move of Florencio Chitay Nech and the next of kin to the capital city, caused expenses that amount to approximately Q. 500.00 [(five hundred quetzales)].” Likewise, they pointed out that “[t]he family has incurred expenses in the investigation regarding the whereabouts [of Mr Chitay Nech], that amount to [Q. 500.00 (five hundred quetzales)] as of 1981.268” Furthermore, they requested the Court to concede, in equity, [t]he value of the assets lost,269” that amounts to US$ 200,000.00 (two hundred thousand Dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in favor of Mr. Florencio Chitay Nech, that shall “be divide[d] in equal parts among [his children].” Nevertheless, they pointed out that “[t]he next of kin insists on getting back the plots of land that belonged to Mr. Chitay Nech, however, […] only a few plots of land have been […] recuperated.” 266 In the mentioned Case, the Tribunal ordered the State to undertake an expedited proceeding that allows for the taking of a statement of absence and presumption of death by forced disappearance. 267 This Court has established that the material harm assumes “the loss of income to the victim, the costs effectuated with motive in the facts, and the consequences of pecuniary nature that are connected with the facts of the Cases.” Case Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 243, para. 43; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 360, and Case Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 275. 268 The representatives noted that the quantiy of Q200.00 (two hundred quetzales) of 1981 corresponds to date to Q. 9,000.000 (nine thousand quetzales), equivalent to US$1,125.00 (one thousand, one hundred and twenty-five dollars of the United States of America).Likewise, they indicated that the use of referente in quetzales of 1981 that “as a salary base, that which Florencia Chitay Nech would have earened in his work, reflected in quetazales of 2009. A preliminary estimate based in the index of cost to the consumer and minimum salary in quetzales of 1981, multiplied by ten to reach its equivalent in the year 2009. On the other hand, it refers to the type of change, one quetzal of 1980 is equivalent to one U.S. dollar, while eight quetzales in 2009 are equivalent to one U.S. dollar. If the difference is taken into account, the base salary must be multiplied by eight to reach its equivalent in 2009 quetzales.” 269 The representatives noted that the quantity ítems form the actual value of loss of the land in the Department of Chimaltenango that oscilates in eleven dollars for square.