54 thereto,” according to Article 3(b) of the Convention against Torture. Furthermore, such an imprecise description of this act violates the requirements of the principle of legal and juridical certainty. 216. Based on the above, it is clear that the State has failed to comply with its obligation to modify its domestic laws to define the offense of torture, as stipulated in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture. XI REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)167 217. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that results in harm creates an obligation to make adequate reparation.168 All aspects of this obligation to repair are regulated by international law.169 The Court has based its decisions in this regard in Article 63(1) of the Convention. 218. In accordance with the findings on merits and the violations to the Convention that have been declared in the preceding chapters, as well as in light of the criteria established by the Court’s case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,170 the Court will rule on the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, and the arguments of the State in this regard, in order to order measures tending to repair the damage. A) INJURED PARTY 219. The Court considers as “injured party”, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, Heliodoro Portugal, Graciela De León, Patria Portugal, and Franklin Portugal, in their capacity as victims of the declared violations (supra paras. 117, 158 and 175); so that they will be the beneficiaries of the reparations the Court orders below. B) COMPENSATION 220. The representatives and the Commission asked the Court to establish compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the victims as a result of the facts considered in the instant case. The Court now proceeds to examine their arguments and the relevant evidence. 167 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates that: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 168 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 152, and Case of Kimel, supra note 61, para. 98. 169 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 152, and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, para. 186. 170 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 168, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 153, and Case of Kimel, supra note 61, para. 99.