executions, torture and the “maintenance of order.” Therefore, the Court does not deem it appropriate to order measures in this regard. 141. Nor does it deem it necessary to order additional measures aimed at guaranteeing the accountability of law enforcement officers and strengthening the capacity to investigate cases involving the use of lethal force by police officers. The reason being that the matters analyzed in this judgment are not meant to suggest that the Court has reservations about or questions the Prosecution Service’s capacity to exercise those responsibilities, as it is currently the authority responsible for such matters. F. Compensation 142. The Commission asked the State to “comprehensively redress the human rights violations declared [...], including fair compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused.” 143. The State argued that it had informed the Commission during the proceedings that a number of working meetings had been held with the members of Mr. Aroca Palma’s family in order to comply with the recommendations made in the Merits Report. The purpose of the meetings held at the domestic level was to hear what the alleged victims had to say regarding possible compensation, what they were seeking, in accordance with the national mechanisms for reparation for victims whose cases the Truth Commission had documented. It asked that no reparations be ordered “as it had been shown that no damage existed” and “there was no evidence to the contrary.” 144. This Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damages in its case law, holding that it covers loss or detriment to the victims’ income, expenses incurred as a result of the facts of the case and the monetary consequences that have a causal nexus with the facts. 100 Case law has also asserted repeatedly that damages serve a clearly compensatory purpose, and the nature and amount depend on the injury caused; thus, they may not entail either enrichment or impoverishment for the victims or their successors. 101 It has held that nonpecuniary damages may cover both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as other sufferings of a nonpecuniary nature in the living conditions of the victims or their families. 102 145. With regard to pecuniary damages, the victims’ representative did not provide any documentation regarding expenses incurred related to the facts of the case, because he did not submit a pleadings, motions, and evidence brief. However, based on the proven factual framework, the Court assumes that expenses were incurred, in relation to both the burial of the body of Joffre Aroca, and to the efforts undertaken to gain access to justice. 146. Compensation for material damages is also appropriate to make up for lost earnings, income not received as a result of Mr. Aroca Palma’s death. Once again, the Court does not have precise information and data that would permit it to quantify the amount involved. 147. Therefore, the Court deems it appropriate to order the payment, in equity, of USD 50,000 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for pecuniary damages, to the parents of Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma. Since both have passed away, the payment shall be made, in equal parts, to their children Cynthia Aroca Palma and Ronald Aroca Palma. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 123. 101 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 79, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 123. 102 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 123. 100 28