222. In its case law, this Court has established that pecuniary damages involve the loss or impairment of the victims’ income, expenses made resulting from the events, and pecuniary consequences that have a causal link to the facts of the case.169 Likewise, case law has reiterated the compensatory nature of the indemnities, whose nature and amount depend on the damage caused. This means that they cannot reflect enrichment or impoverishment for the victims or their successors.170 223. In light of the State's arguments, the Court recalls that in its consistent case law, it has held that any violation of a human right "that has caused damage entails the duty to adequately repair it,"171 which entails an inexcusable obligation for the State. Consistent with what has been indicated and from the perspective of the victims, the right to reparations is then configured as an essential principle of International Human Rights Law. 172 224. Thus, the Court positively values the efforts undertaken by the Ecuadorian State to provide comprehensive reparations to the victims in this case. At the same time, it recalls that, if there are national mechanisms to determine forms of reparation, such procedures and their results must be assessed,173 provided that they meet the criteria of objectivity, reasonableness, and effectiveness to adequately repair the violations of rights declared by the Court.174 However, after a case has been submitted to its jurisdiction, and finding that at the national level and for whatever reasons, the State has not complied with its duty to fully repair the damages caused by the violations committed, the Court cannot deny the victims the right to reparations. 225. In this sense, although the State did not specifically report the amounts that were allegedly proposed as reparations at the national level, it did indicate that they considered “the parameters and amounts established in the I[nter-American] Court’s case law […], by identifying analogous cases.” In turn, the evidence provided makes it possible to identify the amounts that were apparently granted to the five companions of the Casierra Quiñonez brothers on the day of the events.”175 In what is pertinent and taking into account the specific violations declared in this Judgment to the detriment of the victims, the Court will take into account the foregoing. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43, and Case of Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico, supra, para. 181. 170 Cf. Case of the "White Van" (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 79, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para. 154. 171 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2021. Series C No. 437, para. 301. 172 Cf. Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 241. See also, United Nations General Assembly, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, Resolution 40/34 of November 29, 1985 (available at: https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/dbpjvcap/dbpjvcap_ph_s.pdf); United Nations General Assembly, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right of Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law to File Remedies and Obtain Reparations, A/RES/60/147, March 21, 2006 (available at: https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ga_60-147/ga_60-147_s.pdf), and Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition, Mr. Fabián Salvioli, UN Doc. A/HRC/42/45, July 11, 2019, para. 25 (available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3823887). 173 Cf. In the Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 246, and Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 301. 174 Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 246, and Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 301. 175 Cf. Report on the actions carried out in relation to the victims documented by the report of the Truth Commission, Case of Casierra C 94, issued by the Directorate for Protection, Comprehensive Reparation and the Central Authority of the Human Rights Secretariat (evidence file, volume X, annex 60 to the answering brief, folio 5164). 169 48