10 detriment of Mrs. Cruz Franco, in paragraphs 54 to 107 and 112 to 115, declared by the Court in the previously referred to Judgment. 29. The Court established that article 63(1) of the Convention which refers to reparations, reflects a customary law which moreover is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on the responsibility of the States. As the Tribunal established, International Law regulates every aspect of the obligation to repair (scope, nature, mode and determination of beneficiaries) and a defendant State cannot modify or fail to comply with the obligation to repair by invoking provisions or difficulties in its internal laws.3 For the above reasons, the Tribunal is not limited by the responsible State’s internal laws to provide for the various repair measures. 30. The above-mentioned article 63(1) of the Convention empowers the Inter American Court to determine the measures that will lead to repair the consequences of a violation and regulate all aspects thereof.4 31. In the instant case, the Tribunal decided on a compensation for the damages caused to María Victoria Cruz Franco up to her death, as a result of the violation to the rights enshrined in articles 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees), 25 (Judicial Protection) and 5 (Personal Integrity) of the Convention, in relation to article 1(1) of said instrument. In this Case, the Tribunal decided that the suffering inflicted to the aforementioned person from June 1995 to her death on March 30, 2004, had caused non pecuniary damages, and therefore entitled her to receive the corresponding reparation5. Therefore, the Court fixed a compensation generated by the damages suffered by Mrs. Cruz Franco while she was alive, and which is transmitted to her heirs, in this case to her children. 32. From the first Judgment delivered by the Court to the most recent, in all cases when the Court has decided on a matter of reparations, it has held that an indemnification is to be paid for non pecuniary damages suffered by the victims up to the time of their death, as well as to victims of forced disappearance6 and for the many Cfr. Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series No. 129, para. 146 and 147; Case of YATAMA. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 231 and 232; and the Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 122 and 123. 3 4 Cfr. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 3, para. 147; Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 257; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 3, para. 123. Cfr. Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 48(80), 48(81), 159 and 160(b). 5 6 Cfr. Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 179 and 191; o Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of May 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 92, 98, 99 and 100; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 98, 118 and 120; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 303(a); Case of Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 216 and 217; Case of 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 248, 250.a) and 252; Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 66, 67 and 73; Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 261-263; Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 96, 99, 103, 104 and 85; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 174, 178 and 164; Case of Caracazo. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 100, 101, 102 and 110; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 84, 85 and 89; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 61 and 67; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al). Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001.