27 REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)78 128. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation.79 The Court has based its decisions on this particular subject pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 129. Considering the acknowledgment made by the State (supra paras. 8, 19, 20, 22, and 23), in accordance with the above considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared to be such in the preceding chapters, as well as in the light of the criteria embodied in the Court’s case law in connection with the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations,80 the Court will now address the requests for reparations made by the Commission and the victim’s representative in order to adopt the measures required to redress the damage. A) Injured party 130. The Court will now determine who are to be considered “injured parties” under Article 63(1) of the American Convention and, accordingly, the beneficiaries of the reparations set by the Court. 131. First of all, the Court considers Juan Francisco Bueno-Alves, in his capacity as victim of the violations which have been proven to be committed to his detriment, an “injured party,” as a result of which he is entitled to such reparations as may be set by the Court for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as the case may be. 132. Similarly, such next of kin of Mr. Bueno-Alves as were declared victims of the violation of the right enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, namely Tomasa Alves-De Lima, Inés María del Carmen AfonsoFernández, Ivonne Miriam Bueno, Verónica Inés Bueno, and Juan Francisco Bueno will also be considered “injured parties.” The victim’s next of kin will be beneficiaries of the reparations set by the Court for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as the case may be, in their capacity as victims. B) Compensation 133. The Court’s case law has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the cases in which compensation therefor is due.81 78 Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] 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.” 79 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 14, para. 199; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 413; and Case of Vargas-Areco, supra note 14, para. 139. 80 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 14, paras. 201 and 202; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 162, and Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.), supra note 19, paras. 143 and 144. 81 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 14, para. 213; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 423; and Case of Vargas-Areco, supra note 14, para. 146.