115 237. As the term suggests, reparations consist of measures that tend to make the effects of the violations committed disappear. Their nature and amount depend on the damage caused both at the pecuniary and non-pecuniary levels. In this regard, reparations ordered must be in relation to the violations found in the previous chapters of this Judgment. 238. Pursuant to the above, the Court must first decide on the determination of the beneficiaries of the reparations; then it will set the latter regarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, other forms of reparation and, finally, legal costs and expenses. XIII BENEFICIARIES Pleadings of the Commission 239. The Commission stated that, due to the nature of the violations committed by the State, those persons who had close emotional ties to Myrna Mack Chang were deeply affected both by the suffering experienced because of the loss of one of their beloved ones, and by their own emotional loss. The Commission deemed that the beneficiaries of the reparations must be: Lucrecia Hernández Mack, daughter; Víctor Hernández Anzueto, former husband (at the time of the facts they had already divorced); Yam Mack Choy, the father; Zoila Chang Lau, the mother; Helen, Marco, Freddy, Vivian and Ronald, all of them Mack Chang, “siblings of the victim.” Pleadings of the representatives of the next of kin of the victim 240. The representatives of the next of kin of the victim claimed that the reparations that the Court might order, as a consequence of the human rights violations committed by the State against Myrna Mack Chang, “are payable to: 1) Myrna Mack Chang, the victim; 2) Lucrecia Hernández Mack, the daughter de the victim; 3) Yam Mack Choy, the father; 4) Zoila Chang Lau, the mother; and the siblings of the victim: 5) Helen Mack Chang, sister and private accuser; 6) Marco Mack Chang; 7) Freddy Mack Chang; and 8) Ronald Chang Apuy.” Pleadings of the State 241. case. The State did not refer to the beneficiaries of the reparations in the instant 277 Cf., inter alia, Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 72; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 149; Cantos Case, supra note 35, para. 68; Las Palmeras Case. Reparations, supra note 10, para. 38; El Caracazo Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 77; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 260, para. 203; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 61; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 22,, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 39; Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations, supra note 248, para. 41; Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, para. 34; “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 61; “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 77; and Blake Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, para. 32.