125 determine whether the decisions taken in that jurisdiction have made an effective contribution to ending impunity by ensuring the non-repetition of the harmful acts and guaranteeing the free and full exercise of the rights protected by the Convention. 339. In the Pueblo Bello Massacre and the “Mapiripán Massacre” cases, both against Colombia, the Court found that the comprehensive reparation of the violation of a right protected by the Convention cannot be reduced to the payment of compensation to the next of kin of the victim.252 Hence, it took into account some of the results obtained in the administrative proceedings instituted by the next of kin of the victims in these cases, considering that the compensation established by those instances for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was included in the broadest concepts of pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations. Accordingly, the Court indicated that those results could be considered when establishing the pertinent reparations, “on the condition that what was decided in those proceedings has been considered res judicata and is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.”253 When establishing the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the human rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, a substantial aspect of the dispute before the Court is not whether judgments were delivered at the national level or whether conciliation agreements were reached on the civil or administrative responsibility of a State body with regard to the violations committed to the detriment of the victims of human rights violations or their next of kin, but whether the domestic proceedings ensured real access to justice, in keeping with the standards established in the American Convention.254 340. The Court has indicated that, in cases of human rights violations, the State has the obligation to make reparation, so that although the victims or their next of kin should have ample opportunity to seek just compensation, this obligation cannot rest exclusively on their procedural initiative or on the contribution of probative elements by private individuals. Thus, in the terms of the obligation to provide reparation that arises from a violation of the Convention (infra para. 346), the administrative proceedings do not constitute per se an effective and adequate recourse to repair that violation comprehensively.255 341. Adequate reparation, within the framework of the Convention, requires measures of rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Recourses such as the action for direct reparation or the action for annulment and reestablishment of the right in the case of an administrative act that may have resulted in damage, have a very limited scope and conditions of access that are not appropriate for the purposes of reparation established in the American Convention. 252 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 206; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 214. Likewise, cf. Eur.C.H.R., Yasa v. Turkey [GC], Judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, § 74; and Eur.C.H.R., Kaya v. Turkey [GC], Judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, § 105. 253 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 206; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 214. 254 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 206; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 211. 255 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 109.