24 64. The State mentioned that “derived [from the acknowledgment of international responsibility] in the present case [it had] grant[ed] an economic compensation to [the next of kin] of the victims in compliance with the recommendations of the Commission […].” Said amount was stipulated in the (supra para. 16). It added that “it does not share the position that said amounts be deducted from those appropriately set by the […] Court, nor that they be considered decisions adopted domestically, since, even though it is true that they result from an agreement between the parties, it is also true that they result from the compliance with the recommendations issued by the [Commission], which is not a domestic mechanism but a [b]ody of the Inter-American Human Rights Protection System. Additionally, said compensation was not imposed by the State, nor did it derive from a process of national compensation, on the contrary, it resulted from the substantiation of a case on violations to Human Rights against the State at an international level. Likewise, it can be determined that the amounts granted are not typical of the domestic compensation mechanisms, since it exceeds them significantly […].” 65. This Tribunal reiterates that according to its jurisprudence a judgment in a case of a violation of rights is per se a form of reparation.78 However, given the characteristics of the cases submitted before it, the Tribunal has considered that one of the modalities of reparation of the violations to human rights committed is the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In the case sub judice, the State indicated that “it agreed on the amount of [two million quetzales] (2,000,000.00) as economic reparation” and that “payment of the economic compensation was made […] on December 29 and 30, 2005.”79 (supra para. 16(c)) 66. The Court values the payment of compensations made by the State based on the Agreement signed by the parties (supra para. 15(c)) and considers that the amount granted not only reflects the will of the parties but it is adequate and fair according to jurisprudential criteria. As indicated by the State, the compensation granted was not imposed by it, nor did it result from a domestic compensation process, it was the result of the substantiation of a case before the Inter-American Human Rights System. (supra para. 64) Therefore, this Tribunal does not consider it necessary to set additional compensations. C) Other Forms of Reparation: Obligation to investigate, Measures of Satisfaction, Rehabilitation, and Guarantees of non-repetition. 67. The Tribunal will determine the measures of satisfaction that seek to repair the non-pecuniary damage and that do not have a pecuniary nature and it will define measures with a public scope or effect.80 78 Cfr. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru, supra note 77, para. 56; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 17, para. 239, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 164. 79 Cfr. Copy of the administrative settlement records (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, annex I, folios 2 through 19). 80 Cfr. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 17, para. 240, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 164.