63 do not expressly invoke them”.136 180. Article 11 of the American Convention sets forth that: 1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. […] 181. Article 17(1) of the American Convention provides that 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state. […] 182. Regarding to Article 11 of the Convention, it has been proven that the alleged victims were treated as “terrorists”, subjecting them and their family to hatred, public contempt, persecution, and discrimination, for which reason there has been a violation of Article 11 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of this same Convention, to the detriment of los members of the family mentioned in paragraphs 67.t and 67.u of the instant Judgment. 183. Regarding to Article 17 of the American Convention, this Court deems that the facts alleged in the instant case do not fit under it, for which reason the Court will not issue a ruling on this. XV REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE CONVENTION) Obligation to Redress Pleadings of the Commission 184. Regarding to reparations that may be ordered by the Court as a consequence of the violations found, the Commission argued that: a) sentencing of the direct perpetrators of the facts by the Peruvian courts, as regards payment of civil compensation to their next of kin, insofar as it is not set in accordance with inter-American standards and carried out, does not free the State of its international obligation to make reparations to the next of kin of the victims, in connection with the acts committed by State agents; b) civil reparation “amounts ordered were insufficient”, to be paid by lowranking policemen who in Peru generally do not have the material assets to 136 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 134; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 224; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 155; and Cantos Case. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 58; likewise, see Eur. Court H.R., Case of Guerra and others v. Italy, Judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p.13, para. 44; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Philis v. Greece, Judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A No. 209, p. 19, para. 56; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Powell and Rayner v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A No. 172, p. 13, para. 29; and Court of Justice of the European Communities. Judgment of November 19, 1998 in case C-252/96 P, p.7, para. 23.