20 this improvement be obtained at the domestic level, provided that it does not harm the base or limit established in the decision of this international Court? 75. As is its custom, in this judgment, the Inter-American Court has ordered that the amounts which the State must pay for compensation may not be affected by taxes or other charges. This provision, which is invariably included in judgments on reparations, has the legitimate and understandable purpose of preventing the Court’s decision from being circumvented by a fiscal or other measure, and the victim or his next of kin, their representatives and legal assistants, being deprived of the compensation established by the Court. I believe that the concept of preserving the amount of the reparation that should reach the hands of the beneficiaries must be firmly maintained. 76. Considering this objective, which I fully share, but also the characteristics of the tax system – which the Court’s decision does not question – I consider that, in many cases, it would be possible to accommodate this intention, without excluding the beneficiaries of the compensation from the national fiscal regime. It would be sufficient to avoid the net amount of the compensation to be paid by the State being reduced by taxes. This could be achieved – I mention this as an alternative worth considering – by other procedures than fiscal exclusion. For example, the State could pay a higher amount than the one allocated by the Court, so that, once the tax has been deducted, it will be identical to the amount established in the judgment. The beneficiary of the compensation could also be paid bonifications, as established by the national tax system. This would allow the Court’s ruling to be complied with, on the one hand, and respect the domestic fiscal regime, on the other. What is not acceptable is the reduction of the compensation by a tax deduction, which is not compensated by another means in order to reimburse the net value established for the compensation. 77. In this respect, I have stated: “Strictly speaking, it is not a question of the beneficiary – the taxpayer in fiscal terms – remaining outside the State’s tax system, but that the compensation owed should not be reduced by this concept. Therefore, it should be understood that the compensation is established in net terms. It would be for the State, if applicable, to order the exemption or to pay a higher amount, so that the amount of the tax could be deducted from this and the total amount of the compensation would remain the same” (“Las reparaciones en el sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos”, in García Ramírez, La jurisdicción internacional…, cit., p. 308). The Court formulated some interesting considerations on this point in the Suárez Rosero case, even though, finally, it did not adopt the decision that could be inferred from them, but once again used the traditional formula for its decisions. When deciding that the amounts established for compensation should be paid “promptly and in full,” it stated a pertinent general principle: “It is incumbent on the State to exhaust all measures to ensure prompt and effective fulfillment of this obligation, under the conditions and within the time limits established in th[e] judgment and, in particular, to adopt suitable measures to ensure that the legal deductions that [...] financial institutions charge on all monetary transactions shall not abridge the beneficiaries’ right to receive the full amounts ordered for them.” (ICourtHR, Suárez Rosero case, Interpretation of the judgment on reparations (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of May 29, 1999, Series C No. 51, para. 45(2)). Sergio García-Ramírez Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary