174. In this regard, the Court reiterates that, in keeping with the provisions of Article 53 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, “[t]he States may not prosecute alleged victims, witnesses or expert witnesses, or take reprisals against them or their next of kin, owing to the testimony or expert opinions they provide to the Court.” This is also applicable to the representatives of the victims. 175. In addition, the Court recalls that, according to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the obligation to comply with the provisions of the judgments of the Court corresponds to a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, according to which the States are required to fulfill their international treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has indicated previously and pursuant to Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they may not invoke the provisions of internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.204 The convention-based obligations of State Parties are binding upon all State authorities and organs.205 176. Based on the above, the Court finds that it is not necessary to order a specific measure of reparation to guarantee compliance in good faith with the obligations arising from this judgment, or to protect the victim and her representatives from possible reprisals, because the State has assumed these obligations through the direct application of the basic principles of international law, the American Convention, and the Court’s Rules of Procedure. C. Compensation 1. Pecuniary damage 177. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it must be compensated.206 1.1 Arguments of the parties 178. The Commission did not ask the Court for a specific amount for this concept in favor of the victim. However, it asked the Court to “order the State to pay the salary and the work-related and/or fringe benefits that the victim has failed to receive since her removal and until her reinstatement.” 179. For their part, the representatives stated that, from the time the victim was removed from her post, “she ceased to receive her salary and other work-related 204 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 176, para. 35; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 22, para. 177, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 13, para. 59. 205 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 176, para. 35; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 104, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 22, para. 177. 206 This Court has established that pecuniary damage involves “the loss of or detriment to the victims’ income, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal connection to the facts of the case.” Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 13, para. 248, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 19, para. 128. 52