64 pay compensation and, furthermore, the next of kin of the victims have received no payment at all for said civil reparation; the State has neither paid nor made any effort to ensure that the next of kin of the victims receive civil reparations; c) since those liable for the facts were members of a State institution, the Peruvian National Police, the State is “under the obligation to pay the compensation to the next of kin of the victims”; subsequently, the State may attempt, pursuant to its domestic legislation, an action for reimbursement to recover from the direct perpetrators the compensation it had to pay; and d) the Commission asked the Court to find that the State has the international obligation to redress the next of kin of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers for the violations found, by means of a compensation that is paid by the State, set according to international standards and for a sufficient amount to compensate both the pecuniary and the moral damages. Pleadings of the representative of the victims and their next of kin 185. The representative of the victims and their next of kin asked the Court to order the State to accept its responsibility for the policy of extra-legal executions against the civilian population, in the context of which the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers were tortured and murdered; to acknowledge the cover-up mechanisms used to “hide said crimes within that systematic context and the individual liabilities that were hidden;” and to restore the rights that were abridged. Pleadings of the State 186. Regarding to the argument of the Commission that the State has the international obligation to redress the next of kin of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers for the alleged violations of their human rights, the State argued that “it accepts the responsibility for the crime committed by [its] police agents, and that it will therefore jointly and severally provide reparations for the injuries caused.” Considerations of the Court 187. Based on the points discussed in the foregoing chapters, the Court has found violations, in connection with the facts in this case, of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 19 and 25 of the American Convention, all of them in combination with Article 1(1) of this same Convention, as well as Articles 1, 6, 8 and 9 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri; Articles 5, 8, 11 and 25 of the American Convention, all of them in combination with Article 1(1) of this same Convention, to the detriment of Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe, Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, Ricardo Emilio Gómez Paquiyauri, Carlos Pedro Gómez Paquiyauri, Marcelina Haydeé Gómez Paquiyauri, Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri and Miguel Ángel Gómez Paquiyauri; Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of this same Convention, to the detriment of Jacinta Peralta Allccarima; and Article 11 of the Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of this same Convention, to the detriment of Nora Emely Gómez Peralta. This Court has pointed out several times in its jurisprudence that it is a principle of International Law that any violation to an international obligation that has caused injury generates an obligation to adequately