102 b) It was “inadmissible to order compensation in favor of Lori Berenson, and inadmissible to introduce a procedural opportunity not established in the Rules of Procedure for the Commission to substitute the petitioner” as regards reparations; c) It had repaired the violations of Lori Berenson’s human rights prior to the Commission’s Report and had respected her human rights in the trial and judgment in the civil court; also “ it was complying with its obligations under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, in relation [to Lori Berenson,]”; d) Lori Berenson “did not […] request compensation or any financial reparation from the Peruvian courts”; e) “[N]either the alleged victim, nor her defense lawyers, nor her next of kin have requested compensation or financial reparation in this case within the time established in Article 35(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court in force in 2002,” nor “have they provided the Court with evidence of pecuniary damage”; f) “The Commission’s request ‘to order the Peruvian State to adopt the necessary measures to reform Decree Laws N[os.] 25,475 and 25,659 […]’ [should be declared] inadmissible, because the State carried out these reforms as a result of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, delivered in case file No. 010-2002-AI/TC (Marcelino Tineo Silva and more than 5,000 citizens), and the legislative decrees promulgated to comply with it”; g) The Commission’s request is inadmissible inasmuch as it proposes the payment of costs and expenses, because “the State has declared that it acknowledges its responsibility for the acts committed by its authorities prior to November 2000”; therefore, it requested the Court “to bear in mind that this case had not been brought owing to the State’s reluctance to comply with its human rights obligations,” but “the proceeding before the Court ha[d] been brought owing to the insistence of the Commission […] and the representatives of the alleged victim”; and h) The fact that the case has been filed before the Court and that the State has defended its position in relation to the Commission’s application “does not justify imposing the payment of procedural costs in favor of the alleged victim”. Considerations of the Court 230. As described in previous chapters, the Court has found that, at the time of the facts of this case, the State violated Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) with regard to the detention conditions endured by Lori Berenson in the Yanamayo Prison, 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention, in relation to the military trial, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Lori Berenson. In its consistent case law, the Court has established that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to