5 13. On November 11, 1996, the President requested the Government and the Commission to provide information concerning the identity of Ms. María del Carmen Santana. The Government responded to that request through communications submitted on November 28, 1996, and January 14, 1997. The Commission, for its part, submitted to the Court on December 13, 1996, a copy of a communication it had received from the petitioners on behalf of the victims. IV 14. In operative paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Judgment of December 8, 1995, the Court decided that Colombia "is obligated to pay fair compensation to the relatives of the victims and to reimburse the expenses they have incurred in their action before the Colombian authorities in relation to these proceedings." Nonetheless, there is disagreement between the parties as to the nature and amount of the reparations and expenses, and in establishing the identity of one of the victims. The dispute over these matters is to be settled by the Court at the present judgment. 15. The provision applicable to reparations is Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which states: [I]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. This article embodies one of the fundamental principles of general international law recognized repeatedly in the jurisprudence (Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21 and Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 29; Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J., Reports 1949, p. 184). It has been thus applied by this Court (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Compensatory Damages (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Godínez Cruz Case, Compensatory Damages (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 8, para. 23; Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 43; El Amparo Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 14 and Neira Alegría et al. Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 36). 16. The obligation to make reparation as ordered by the international tribunals is, consequently, governed by international law in all of its aspects, such as its scope, characteristics, type, and determination of the beneficiaries, none of which shall be subject to modification by the respondent State through invocation of provisions of its own domestic law (Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, supra 15, para. 44; El Amparo Case, Reparations, supra 15, para. 15, and Neira Alegría et al. Case, Reparations, supra 15, para. 37). V 17. Restitutio in integrum being impossible in the instant case, inasmuch as its concerns a violation of the right to life, it is necessary to seek alternative forms of reparation, such as pecuniary compensation, for the victims' relatives and dependents. Such compensation