109 disparagement, harassment or discrimination against the next of kin of [the] three women.” 443. Even though the Commission did not submit arguments on this point, the Tribunal will proceed to examine these allegations because the requirements established in paragraph 232 supra have been fulfilled. 444. Article 11 of the Convention recognizes that everyone has the right to have his honor respected, prohibits any unlawful attack on honor and reputation, and imposes on the States the obligation to provide the protection of the law against such attacks. In general, the right to honor relates to self-esteem and self-worth, while reputation refers to the opinion that others have of an individual.445 445. The Court points out that the allegations concerning the supposed violation of Article 11 of the Convention to the detriment of the victims and their mothers refer to facts relating to the treatment they suffered as a result of the search for the young women who disappeared and the subsequent quest for justice. The juridical consequences of these facts have already been examined in relation to Article 5 of the Convention; the Tribunal therefore finds that it is not in order to declare a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. IX REPARATIONS 446. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation which results in harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation.446 This obligation is regulated by international law.447 The Court has based its decisions in this regard on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 447. In accordance with the findings on the merits, and the violations of the Convention declared in the previous chapters, as well as in light of the criteria established in the Court’s jurisprudence concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,448 the Tribunal will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and by the representatives so as to order measures tending to repair the damage. 1. Injured party 448. The Court reiterates that those who have been declared victims of the violation of a right recognized in the Convention are considered to be the “injured party.”449 In 445 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 57, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 117. 446 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 170, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 94. 447 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 170, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 94. 448 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Reparations and Costs, supra note 446, paras. 25 and 26; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 173, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 95. 449 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. 82; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, supra note 46, para. 112, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 97.