implementation of said training, including the public officials who will benefit as well as objective measurements of the effects and impact of the training.” Moreover, to accomplish this, it required the State “to present a report every six months over a two-year period following notification of [this] Judgment.” 93. The Court considers that, in light of the facts of this case, this measure to guarantee nonrepetition, which includes training for “judicial officials” under the terms mentioned in the previous paragraph, is particularly important given that some of the violations in this case are derived from the failure of the judicial authorities and the Public Prosecutor to investigate the allegations of torture as well as their use of incriminating statements made by the victims while under torture to uphold the criminal convictions. In this regard, the Court welcomes the State’s commitment to continue training public authorities in human rights, and therefore ratifies this measure of reparation under the terms agreed by the parties. F) Compensation for pecuniary reimbursement of costs and expenses and non-pecuniary damages and 94. In the sections entitled “Reparation for non-pecuniary damage and measures of satisfaction” and “Reparation for pecuniary damage” of the friendly settlement agreement, the State undertook to pay each victim the amounts agreed for non-pecuniary damages and “loss of earnings” under the terms and conditions specified in this agreement. 95. Furthermore, Mexico agreed to pay the amounts stated in the agreement as reimbursement of costs and expenses “to the attorney María del Pilar Noriega García and […] to CEJIL [… for] expenses incurred in handling this case from the time of the victims’ arrest until the proceedings before the Inter-American Court,” under the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. 96. According to the provisions of the agreement, the compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses “shall be paid by the State within 90 calendar days of the notification of [this] Judgment,” and, “[i]f [these] pecuniary obligations of the State are not met within the period stipulated, the State shall pay the amounts owed adjusted for inflation and a moratorium interest rate of 4% annually.” The Defense of Human Rights Unit of the Interior Ministry “will be responsible for ensuring compliance with these measures.” The agreement also provides that, “[t]he parties are bound to maintain strict confidentiality concerning the amounts of the financial compensation.” 97. In its case law the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and specified the situations when it should be paid. The Court has established that pecuniary damage entails “the loss of or detriment to the victims’ earnings, the expenses incurred in relation to the events and financial consequences that have a causal link with the facts of the case.” 96 Also, with respect to the concept of pecuniary damage, the Court has ruled that “this may include both the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victims and their families, the impairment of highly significant personal values, as well as changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the lives of the victim or his family.”97 96 Case of Bamaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43 and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra note 84, para. 246. 97 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra, para. 84; Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 77 and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra note 84, para. 251. 27