29 61. The Court has already established on repeated occasions that pecuniary damage “involves the loss of or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenditure arising from the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal relationship with the facts of the case.”69 Consequently, determination of the beneficiaries of the compensation for pecuniary damage is not based solely on the establishment of family ties with the victim, but also on the fact that harm has been suffered as a consequence of the facts that violated the Convention, which can be attributed to the State. 62. The Court observes that the State confuses domestic and international law on this matter. In the instant case, the Court determined various headings for pecuniary damage that had to be compensated by the State, taking into account “the claims of the parties, the body of evidence, the proven facts of the [...] case Consequently, the Court and [the criteria of the] case law’ of the Court.70 recognized: a) The expenditure effectively incurred by the parents of Juan Humberto Sánchez and one of his companions “in order to find his whereabouts, in view of the concealment of what had happened and the failure to investigate the facts by the Honduran authorities”71; b) The loss of income of the sisters of Juan Humberto Sánchez, who lost their employment “as a result of [one of them] traveling to the public hearing held at the Inter-American Court”72 and in favor of one of the companions of Juan Humberto Sánchez, who also lost her employment, but as a result of the measures she took to discover the whereabouts of Sánchez73; and c) Also, as on other occasions,74 in this case the Court established compensation for past and future medical expenses and for the move that the next of kin of Juan Humberto Sánchez were forced to make. With regard to medical expenses, the Court found that both the parents and one of the companions of Juan Humberto Sánchez “suffered various health problems as a result of the detention and extrajudicial execution of […] Juan Humberto third considering paragraph; Garrido and Baigorria case, supra note 65, third considering paragraph; and inter alia, Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 106; Barrios Altos case. Reparations, supra note 49, para. 41; Barrios Altos case. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra note 65, para. 15; and Barrios Altos case, supra note 48, para. 41. 69 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 162. Also, cf., Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 65; Bámaca Velásquez case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 43; and Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 76. 70 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 166. 71 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 166.a). 72 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 70.E.41.d) and 166.b). 73 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 70.41.c) and 166.b). 74 Cf. El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 86; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 74.b; Bámaca Velásquez case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 54.b); Cantoral Benavides case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 51.d); and the White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 15, para. 98.