132 internationally responsible for the violation of the human rights of the persons subject to its jurisdiction. Also, in the international jurisdiction, the parties and the issue in dispute are, by definition, different from those in the domestic jurisdiction.266 Should a human rights violation have been produced, the Court can order that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of the right or freedom that has been violated and, when applicable, that the consequences of the measure or situation that violated the rights be repaired, either by the payment of compensation to the injured party or by other forms of reparation, which, owing to their nature, are more extensive than those ordered in the domestic sphere, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case. B) Pecuniary damage The Commission’s arguments 366. In relation to pecuniary damage the Commission indicated that: (a) The Court should establish the amount of the compensation for indirect damage and loss of earnings, on grounds of equity; (b) Many families suffered serious material losses because the paramilitary group that raided El Aro set fire to numerous homes, causing the loss of the movables and immovables of the families affected and the latter’s displacement to other zones; (c) When the paramilitary group withdrew from El Aro, it stole around 1,200 head of livestock belonging to various inhabitants; (d) The victims who lost their possessions “helped support their families, whose living conditions were severely affected by the facts [of this case]. Also, the violation of the right to property has resulted in a material loss that can be attributed directly to the State”; (e) The displacement resulting from the massacres has had grave consequences for these family groups; (f) The calculation of the damages must necessarily be proportionate to the gravity of the violations; and (g) Regarding the amounts of compensation that the victims and their next of kin have a right to for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Commission considered that the representatives were in a better position to quantify their claims. The representatives’ arguments 367. In relation to pecuniary damage the representatives indicated that: (a) The indirect damage should take into account that the alleged victims and their next of kin were peasant farmers, that their sustenance was derived 266 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 211