70 to provide reparations is regulated in every aspect by International Law.235 The Court has based its decisions on this matter upon Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 227. In this case, the Court must consider whether “the partial Agreement on certain reparation measures” made between the State and the representatives on January 31, 2007 (supra para. 20), is compatible with the relevant provisions of the American Convention; whether it ensures the payment of just compensation to the victims’ next of kin; and whether it provides redress for the various consequences of the human rights violations committed in this case.236 The Court will also examine the claims that remain in dispute and shall determine the appropriate reparations. 228. The Court will carry out this analysis in the context of the State’s recognition of responsibility (supra para. 8 to 54) pursuant to the findings on the merits set forth and the violations of the Convention established in previous sections, and in accordance with the guidelines laid out in the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations.237 A) INJURED PARTY 229. The Court shall now proceed to determine which persons should be considered “injured parties” under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, and who are consequently entitled to the reparations to be set by the Tribunal. 230. In Colombia’s reply brief, in the section on Reparations and under the title “Injured Party”, Colombia requested that the Court, firstly, “dismiss the claims” of the victims’ next of kin who “went directly to the Inter-American Court […] without first pursuing legal action in the domestic courts, despite having the opportunity to do so.” Secondly, the State requested that the Court exclude “as injured parties surviving victims and all the next of kin who […] received some kind of compensation under domestic law for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused”, and indicated that these persons “[were] awarded compensation by the contentious administrative courts and in the settlement proceedings” (supra para. 17). 231. The representatives stated that “the victims and next of kin in this case who did not receive compensation at the domestic level are entitled to fair compensation just as the victims who have appeared before this Court in the past under similar circumstances”. 232. This Court has already expressed its view regarding the State’s first argument (supra para. 46). With regards to the State’s second argument (supra para. 30), the Court observes that the argument refers to the granting of compensation rather than the determination of the injured parties in this case. In other words, the State asks that this Court not set compensation amount in favor of the individuals who were awarded compensation at the domestic level. 235 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 200; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 415; and Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 16, para. 143. 236 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 18, para. 90; Case of Durand and Ugarte. Reparations, supra note 18, para. 23; and Case of Barrios Altos. Reparations, supra note 18, para. 23. 237 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 200 to 203; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 415 to 417; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para. 228 to 230.