23 Reparations, supra 42, para. 41); (cf. chemin de Fer de la baie de Delagoa, sentence, 29, mars 1900, Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités, 2eme série, t. 30, p. 402; Case of Cape Horn Pigeon, November 29, 1902, Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1902, Appendix I, p. 470; Traité of Neuilly, Article 179, Annex, Paragraph 4 (Interprétation), Arrêt No. 3, 1924, P.C.I.J., series A, No. 3, p. 9; Maal Case, 1 June 1903, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. X, pp. 732 and 733, and Campbell Case, 10 June 1931, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. II, p. 1158). 70. The consequences of the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention were detrimental to Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez’ next of kin because the remedy of habeas corpus was ineffective in securing his release and perhaps saving his life (cf. Castillo Páez Case, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, paras. 81-84). Accordingly, the Court considers that effective investigation and punishment of those responsible for the events that prompted the instant Case (infra 107), as ordered by this Court in its Judgment of November 3, 1997 (infra 103), is one reparation measure that those next of kin are due. IX MATERIAL DAMAGES 71. The victim’s next of kin listed three items under the generic heading of "material damages": a) The lost earnings include the lost earnings of Ernesto Rafael CastilloPáez for three years as a mathematics professor and for 42 years (from age 25 to 67) as a sociologist, less 25 percent for personal expenditures. This gives a total of US$687,132.00 (six hundred eighty-seven thousand, one hundred thirty-two United States dollars); b) The indirect or consequential damages include representations before the Peruvian authorities, medical expenses and expenses incurred for Mónica Inés Castillo-Páez’ exile in the Netherlands and in Sweden, for a total of US$56,300.00 (fifty-six thousand three hundred United States dollars); and c) The nuclear family’s patrimonial damages occasioned by the victim’s disappearance include various lost assets (a decline in family income, bankruptcy of the family business, the sale of the home occupied by the family at a very reduced cost, and family expenses occasioned by their current residence), for a total of US$200,000.00 (two hundred thousand United States dollars). The "material damages" being claimed, therefore, total US$943,432.00 (nine hundred forty-three thousand, four hundred thirty-two United States dollars). 72. The Commission argued that when computing the “lost earnings” and "indirect or consequential damages," it was imperative that they be "updated for monetary depreciation or devaluation and interest accruing from the date on which the victim’s unlawful detention and disappearance occurred…."