61 1. Injured party 226. The Court will now determine which persons are to be regarded as “injured parties” under the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention and, therefore, beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. 227. The Court deems that Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, and Perkins Rocha Contreras are “injured parties” as victims of the violations declared to have been committed to their detriment, and therefore shall be entitled to the reparations ordered by the Court both for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 228. As for Jacqueline Ardizzone Montilla, Mr. Apitz’s wife, and María Costanza Cipriani, Mr. Rocha’s wife, the Court notes that the Commission in its Report on the merits has not declared them to be victims of any violation of the Convention (supra para. 1); that in its application, the Commission identified Mr. Apitz, Mr. Rocha and Ms. Ruggeri as the only beneficiaries of the reparations ordered and did not identify their next of kin as victims; and that their representative did not allege any violation to the detriment of their next of kin either, but in his brief containing pleadings and motions he requested compensation for non-pecuniary damages on behalf of Mr. Apitz and Mr. Rocha’s wives on the grounds that “moral damage is reflected on the psychological consequences that the violation of human rights may have both for the victim and his next of kin.” 229. In this regard, the Court reiterates that all those persons who have been declared to be victims of violations of rights enshrined in the Convention are deemed to be injured parties. According to the case law of the Court, the alleged victims must be identified in the application and in the Commission’s report, under Article 50 of the Convention. Furthermore, under Article 33(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it is the duty of the Commission and not of the Court, to accurately identify the alleged victims at the appropriate procedural stage in a case submitted before the Court.246 2. Compensation 2.1 Pecuniary damages 230. In its case law, the Court has developed the theory of pecuniary damages and the cases in which compensation must be set according thereto.247 231. The Commission requested “reparations for the victims for the back salaries and economic benefits that the victims have not received since the time they were removed from office until they are reinstated in their positions” and that “the amount of compensation be set in equity.” 246 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 231, para. 98, and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 29. 247 The Court has established that pecuniary damages entail “the pecuniary damage, which implies the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victim, and the expenses incurred by the next of kin due to the events in the instant case.” Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 124; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 259, and Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 78.