13 expenses of rehabilitation, etc. What can be discussed is the amount in those categories, if this offer to pay fifty thousand dollars is reasonable or if it should be more or less [...] However, in the view of the Commission it is a appeasement of the procedural claims for compensation and reparations. The Commission also stated that there were categories not covered by the State in its offer of reparations, particularly, those referring to the obligation to investigate and to adopt measures of non repetition. 50. The Court finds that, as the Commission has stated, the statements of the State constitute an express acceptance of the categories of pecuniary reparations demanded by Mr. Suárez Rosero. Therefore, in respect to these categories, the Court will limit its analysis to the amount of the payments required. 51. The State did not include in its offer any reference to non pecuniary measures of reparations. For that reason, the Court will proceed to study their justification, using the information at its disposition. VII BENEFICIARIES OF THE REPARATIONS 52. These is no dispute as to who are considered to be the beneficiaries of the measures of reparations. Mr. Suárez Rosero, the Commission, and the State have agreed in stating that Mr. Suárez Rosero, Mrs. Ramadán Burbano, and the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán, are the beneficiaries. 53. The Court finds that this designation is in accordance with its case law and with the terms set forth in operative paragraph seven of its November 12, 1997 Judgment. Therefore, it names the aforementioned persons as beneficiaries of the reparations that it will order in the present judgment. VIII FACTS PROVED DURING THE REPARATIONS STAGE 54. For the purpose of determining reparations in this case, the Court will have as a base of reference the facts proved in the November 12, 1997 Judgment. However, during the present stage of the proceedings the parties have added to the file evidence to demonstrate the existence of complementary facts that are relevant to a determination of the measures of reparation. The Court has examined the arguments of the parties and the corresponding evidence and declares the following facts proved: A) with respect to Mr. Suárez Rosero a) when he was detained he worked for the company “Challenge Air Cargo,” in charge of the supervision and control of flights. He received a monthly salary averaging S/.676,853.35 (six hundred seventy-six thousand, eight hundred fifty-three sucres and thirty-five cents), to which the corresponding tax deduction has already been made. That amount is approximately equivalent of US$ 449.40 (four hundred forty-nine dollars of the United States of America and forty cents), based on the exchange rate of the sucre on the date of the detention of Mr. Suárez Rosero. (infra f)