19 Arguments of the State 50. With regard to the Court’s application of Article 63 of the American Convention, the State alleged that: a) When determining compensation, the Court should have left the proceeding open so that the parties could agree on the payment of compensation, and only if they could not reach agreement, could the Court establish the respective amounts; this procedure was used in previous cases against Honduras. The determination of the amount of the compensation can be negotiated by the parties and “they have exclusive competence to establish this; only if they cannot reach agreement, can the Court establish the amount.” However, the State stressed that these observations were made “without detriment to [the Court] ruling in the [judgment] on the measures of another nature [non-pecuniary] (deriving from the obligation to respect and ensure contained in [Article] 1 of the Convention, such as the investigation of the facts relating to the disappearance of the victims, or to the punishment of those responsible, which is closer to the broader concept of ‘reparation’[)]. In this respect, the State indicated that “the [...] Court appears to have failed to distinguish the difference between ‘reparation’ and ‘compensation[’], and the Court’s function in the determination of reparations and compensation in accordance with the interpretation of Article 63(1) of the American Convention and “to have deviated [...] from its own case law.” It also indicated that the Court should abide by criteria of “a very objective nature, and compensation should never be discretional or arbitrary as it appears to be in the judgment” and the criteria must be based on damage revealed by the proven facts and not “mere disperse elements that are unconnected to the litigation or presumptions of responsibility induced by exogenous factors”; b) The judgment is not clear as regard the procedure used to determine the amounts of the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, because “the formula used is not indicated”; c) The “judgment goes to far and exceeds the faculties or attributes invested in the Court, because [...] the amount of the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage is unjustifiably inflated or increased by granting this benefit, not only to the persons who are the legal successors of the victim, but to all his relatives.” It added that the Court had deviated from its own practice on determining the successors, established in the Aloeboetoe et al. case; d) The judgment violated “legal writings on the law [of succession] and the case law of the Court,” because “without any legal basis, it establishes capriciously,” that the daughters and companions of Juan Humberto Sánchez should be considered the beneficiaries of compensation for his loss of earnings. The State added that Sánchez, as the operator of Radio Venceremos, did not have a regular employment and did not receive any salary, “therefore, it cannot be adduced that all the persons mentioned in the judgment, with the exception of his daughters and his mother, would have the right to