268. With respect to the other requests of reparation made by the representative (supra para. 261), they are time-barred and therefore will not be considered because they were made in the final written arguments. G. Compensation 269. The Commission requested that Uruguay be ordered to repair the violations of human rights materially and morally, including a just compensation. 292 270. The representative made the same request as the Commission. It expressed that the “measures for a “just compensation” must take into account: (a) expenses incurred by the family members of the detained disappeared, specifically regarding the search for the victims, visits to military facilities, military courts, lawyers293 […] and the totality of the expenses accumulated during more than 40 years;” (b) lucro cesante or loss of wages, which are requested to be set “in equity,” and (c) pain and suffering, which it considered obvious. 271. The representative did not specify specific monetary amounts in its claims of compensation. In its final written arguments, it asked that “the petitioners and victims be repaired, in equity, as in the case of Gelman v. Uruguay, taking into account the amounts granted by the State.” 272. The State pointed out that on August 8, 1991 “there was a judicially approved agreement with the next of kin of Luis Eduardo González González,” by which María Amelia González Picart de González and Elena Zaffaroni Rocco, “the latter in representation of her minor son, Luis Eduardo González Zaffaroni,” received USD 156,000.00 (one hundred fifty-six thousand United States dollars). 273. Uruguay also noted that Law 18,596, of September 18, 2009, known as the law of “Reparation to the victims of unlawful State acts between June 13, 1968 and February 28, 1985,” established the right to “integral reparation” for the next of kin of the victims. It informed that, under that legislation, family members of the direct victims received the monetary compensation, as follows: With respect to these measures, the Commission “took note that, according to information that it received from the State, the next of kin of the five [alleged direct] victims received some reparations under the terms of Law 18,596” and, although the Commission does not have the corresponding documentary evidence, it considered that ”those reparations could be taken into account at the time of determining the amount of compensation” for the violations of human rights declared in the Merits Report. In the public hearing, the Commission indicated that the Court could “take into consideration the amounts that were granted domestically.” It recalled, nonetheless, what it stated during a visit to Uruguay in 2019: the monetary amounts granted as reparations “established by law for victims of unlawful acts of the State […] are due to the quality of the victims for serious violations of human rights for which the State is responsible. These reparations are not incompatible, nor a substitute for their own income, nor subsidies nor social security pensions. Therefore, the State must adopt the necessary measures to adapt its domestic legislation to adequately permit this aspect of reparations to the victims.” The Court notes that the State presented a document that refers to Law 18,033, which establishes rights to retirement and to a pension for those who for “political reasons” could not work between February 9, 1973 and February 28, 1985. According to the report, a reason for excluding benefits under Law 18,033 is due to having “obtained amparo” by previous reparatory laws. This same document, moreover, explains that the detained disappeared persons do not qualify under the regime of Law 18,033 and that Law 18,596 purported to ”fill this vacuum” (evidence file, annex VIII to the answering brief, fs. 2385 and 2387). The Court, thus, takes note of what the Commission has pointed out and of the referred-to information, but it will not rule on the matter since it notes that, with respect to the facts and victims in this case, there have been no arguments nor concrete petitions on the matter. 292 Notwithstanding that comment, the representative clarified that IELSUR and its lawyers work “pro bono on these cases.” It did not request reimbursement of its costs and expenses for representing the victims. 293 70