57 obligation to make reparations are regulated by international law.144 The Court has based its decisions in this regard on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 199. Within the framework of the partial acknowledgement made by the State (supra paras. 6 and 20 to 26), and according to the findings on merits described above and the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, as well as in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations,145 the Court will rule on the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, and on the position of the State with regard to reparations, and will order measures designed to repair the damage. A) INJURED PARTYS 200. The Court finds that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the following persons are the “injured party” as victims of the violations that have been declared (supra paras. 106, 110, 115, 127, 130, 144 and 169); they will therefore be beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court: Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, Nelly Valle Jaramillo, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, María Leticia Valle Jaramillo, Ligia Valle Jaramillo, Luzmila Valle Jaramillo, Magdalena Valle Jaramillo, Romelia Valle Jaramillo, Marina Valle Jaramillo, Darío Valle Jaramillo, Octavio Valle Jaramillo, Alfonso Montoya Restrepo, Luis Fernando Montoya Valle, Gloria Lucía Correa, Carlos Enrique Jaramillo Correa, María Lucía Jaramillo Correa, Ana Carolina Jaramillo Correa, Jesús Emilio Jaramillo Barrera, Adela Correa de Jaramillo, Blanca Lucía Jaramillo Correa, Romelia Jaramillo Correa, Nellyda Jaramillo Correa, José María Jaramillo Correa, Luis Eugenio Jaramillo Correa, Gloria Elena Jaramillo Correa, Adriana María Jaramillo Correa, Blanca Inés Valle Jaramillo, Gonzalo de Jesús Jaramillo Correa, Juan Guillermo Valle Noreña, John Jairo Valle Noreña and Luz Adriana Valle Noreña. B) COMPENSATION 201. The Court will determine the pertinence of ordering pecuniary reparations in this case and their respective amounts; to this end, it will take into account that the State has provided compensation to some of the victims in the present case pursuant to a judicially approved settlement agreement reached through a domestic action under administrative law. 202. In the instant case, the Court has recognized the role played by the Colombian administrative jurisdiction in providing pecuniary reparations for the human rights violations (supra para. 167). Thus, the Court observes that, on September 28, 2007, a Settlement Agreement146 was approved between, on the one hand, the State of Colombia, represented 144 Cf. Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 120, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 169. 145 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 143, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 122, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 218. 146 Compensation was agreed for “non-pecuniary damage,” “pecuniary damage owed,” and “future pecuniary damage” in favor of Luzmila Valle Jaramillo, María Magdalena Valle Jaramillo, María Nelly Valle Jaramillo, and Luis Fernando Montoya Valle; and compensation only for “non-pecuniary damage” in favor of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, María Leticia Valle Jaramillo, Ligia Amparo Valle Jaramillo, Blanca Inés Valle Jaramillo, Romelia Valle Jaramillo, Marina Valle Jaramillo, and Octavio de Jesús Valle Jaramillo. Settlement Decision of April 26, 2007, Council of State, Administrative Law Chamber. Third Section, Reporting Judge: Mauricio Fajardo, File No. 32793 (2000-00925), (file of attachments to the brief answering the application, attachment 5, folios 2019 to 2026). The Settlement Agreement was approved on September 28, 2007 (file of documents submitted during the public hearing, folio 2797).