124. The Court recalls that the power to determine measures to guarantee breached rights and redress the consequences of violations (supra para. 90) is not conditioned by the amount of resources available to the States. It also cautions that the States Parties to the American Convention may not invoke provisions of constitutional law or other considerations of domestic law to justify their failure to abide by their Convention-based obligations 116 125. The representatives did not specify amounts for pecuniary damages, particularly consequential damages, associated with the extrajudicial execution of Herminio Deras García, the raids, and the resulting detentions (supra paras. 42, 45, 46, 51, 56 to 61). Although the Court finds it reasonable to assume that such expenses did arise, it does not have sufficient information to determine which family members incurred such expenditures or, if so, what share was covered by each one, with the exception of the outlays claimed for Otilia Deras Flores. 117 126. Pecuniary damages include lost wages (income that victims failed to receive due to the declared human rights violations). 118 The Court lacks sufficient specific information to determine how much income the victims lost due to the facts of the instant case. It is clear, however, that the human rights violations declared herein inevitably produced material consequences for the victims declared in this judgment, stemming primarily from the detention in June 1984 (supra paras. 56 to 61), the resulting stigma (supra paras. 61 and 64), and the long-term psychological impact. 127. In view of all this, and considering the kinship of the members of the Herminio Deras García family, the violations declared and the standards established in the Court’s settled case law, the Court finds it appropriate to set in equity the following amounts for compensatory payment to each of the victims for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage, as follows: a) USD 135,000.00 (one hundred thirty-five thousand United States dollars) for Herminio Deras García; b) USD 74,000.00 (seventy-four thousand United States dollars) for Otilia Flores Ortiz; c) USD 51,000.00 (fifty-one thousand United States dollars) for Lorena Deras Flores; d) USD 51,000.00 (fifty-one thousand United States dollars) for Herminio Deras Flores; e) USD 50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for Eustaquia García Alvarado; f) USD 85,000.00 (eighty-five thousand United States dollars) for Domingo Deras Henríquez; g) USD 50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for Alba Luz Deras García; h) USD 71,000.00 (seventy-one thousand United States dollars) for Irma Isabel Deras García; i) USD 50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for Consuelo Deras García; j) USD 70,000.00 (seventy thousand United States dollars) for Luis Rolando Deras García; k) USD 61,000.00 (sixty-one thousand United States dollars) for Héctor García; Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 83, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al., Canales Huapaya et al., Wong Ho Wing, Zegarra Marín and Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, April 5, 2022, para. 17. 117 Mutatis Mutandis. Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 275. 118 Cf. Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 276. 116