38 154. Among other matters, the State requested the Court to clarify whether the damage to health referred to by the representatives “in this case, is a damage that can be compensated and that differs from non pecuniary damage.” It also responded to the request for reparation of the damage to the life project referred to by the representatives, considering that “this only has meaning in a case other than that of the death of the victim” and that, in relation to the next of kin of the victims, “introducing the existence of a life project belonging to the family alters the idea behind this concept, and this attitude contributes […] to causing legal uncertainty.” The State considered that the Court “can reverse the actual trend in case law by stating a priori that [damage to a life project] ‘cannot be given a monetary value,’” and indicated that “a monetary value can however be placed on some disruptions, which can be repaired […].” 155. The State also asked the Court to take into account the documentary evidence authenticating the pre-existence and relationship of the next of kin with the victims, and also, in some cases, proof of close affective ties. In addition, it indicated that “regarding the monetary reparations resulting from the determination of the responsibilities of the Peruvian State, it proposes that the amounts be established according to the policies that the State is already implementing or is about to implement by law and/or administratively.” In this regard, the State drew attention to the creation of the High Level Multisectoral Commission responsible for “peace, collective reparation, and national reconciliation policies” (CMAN), as well as the adoption of the Integral Reparations Program (PIR) Act, and asked the Court to “apply the standards adopted by Peru’s national laws.” With regard to the measures to avoid a repetition of the facts, the State offered “to continue with an exhaustive investigation by the competent organs that encompasses all those responsible for the facts and makes it possible to apply the corresponding criminal sanctions to them.” In addition, the State agreed to publish the judgment in a national newspaper and indicated that it had adopted various domestic measures, including those “relating to human rights education.”112 156. The Court finds it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.113 The Court bases its decisions regarding reparations on Article 63(1) of the American Convention.114 157. Considering the partial acquiescence to the facts made by the State (supra paras. 22 and 23), the facts that the Court has declared proven in this case according to the findings on merits outlined above, and the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, and in light of the criteria established in the case law of the Court concerning the 112 In this regard, the State cited Act No. 27741, which “establishes the educational policy in relation to human rights and international humanitarian law and that their permanent and systematized teaching and dissemination is obligatory”; General Education Act No. 28044, which “incorporates the draft educational reforms proposed by the CVR”; the adoption by ministerial resolution of the “Human Rights Manual applied to the functions of the Police”; Act No. 27775, which “regulates the procedure for execution of judgments delivered by Supranational Courts”; Article 151 of the Basic Law of the Judiciary which “obliges the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to forward to the Supreme Court of Justice the judgment delivered” by the Inter-American Court, which, in turn, “forwards it, for execution, to the court that originated the litigation”; and the series of judgments of the Constitutional Court in which the latter “decided that the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights form part of domestic law.” 113 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Compensatory damages. (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25. Cf. also, Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 226; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 8, para. 128; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 199. 114 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 226; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 8, para. 128; and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 199.