23 attributed to a State, the international responsibility of the latter is immediately engaged for the violation of an international law, with the resulting obligation to make reparation and to ensure that the consequences of the violation cease. 63. As the word indicates, reparations consists in the measures that are intended to eliminate the effects of the violations that were committed. Their nature and amount depend on the damage caused at both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary level. Reparations are not supposed to enrich or impoverish the victim or his heirs19. 64. The reparations established in this judgment must be consistent with the violations found in the judgment on merits delivered by the Court on November 19, 1999 (supra para. 3). VI BENEFICIARIES 65. The Court now proceeds to determine the persons who should be considered “injured party” in the words of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. Since the violations of the Convention that the Court established in its judgment of November 19, 1999, were committed with regard to Anstraun Aman Villagrán Morales, Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes, and also against Ana María Contreras, Matilde Reyna Morales García, Rosa Carlota Sandoval, Margarita Urbina, Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia and Noemí Cifuentes, it should be considered that they are all included in this category and are eligible for the reparations that the Court establishes. In the case of the victims who died, it will also be necessary to determine whether the reparations established in their favor may be transmitted by succession to their next of kin, and which of the latter. 66. No one disputes that Ana María Contreras, mother of Henry Giovanni Contreras; Matilde Reyna Morales García, mother of Anstraun Aman Villagrán Morales; Rosa Carlota Sandoval and Margarita Urbina, respectively mother and grandmother of Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval; Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia, mother of Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez; and Noemí Cifuentes, mother of Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes, are beneficiaries. The Court considers that granting them this condition is in keeping with the Court’s jurisprudence, because, on the one hand, they must be considered beneficiaries of reparations as the successors of their next of kin who are dead and, on the other, as victims of the violation of Articles 5.2, 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, as the judgment on merits found. It should also be recalled that the Court presumes that a person’s death causes non-pecuniary damage to his parents. 67. The Court has indicated, and once again repeats, that the right to compensation for the damage that the victims suffered until the time of their death is transmitted by succession to their heirs. As this Court has stated: Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184; Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 29; and Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21. 19 cf. Blake case. Reparations, supra note 13, para. 34; Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 1, para. 53; and Garrido and Baigorria case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43.