54 213. Finally, the Court does not find it necessary to rule on the other rights of the American Convention that were mentioned, without any arguments, in the brief with pleas and arguments presented by the representatives (supra para. 4). IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention)70 214. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm gives rise to the obligation to repair it adequately.71 All aspects of this obligation to repair are regulated by international law.72 In its decisions, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 215. Based on the findings on merits and the violation of the Convention declared in the corresponding chapter, as well as in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,73 the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and by the representatives and the arguments of the State in this regard, so as to order measures tending to repair the violation. A) INJURED PARTY 216. The Court considers that Jorge Castañeda Gutman is the “injured party” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, as victim of the violation of the right to judicial protection embodied in Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to guarantee and adopt measures, established in Articles 1 and 2 thereof, that has been declared in this judgment, so that he is the beneficiary of the reparations that the Court orders below. B) a) COMPENSATION Pecuniary damage 217. The Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the premises in which it should be compensated.74 70 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates that: If 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. 71 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 19, para. 152; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 19, para. 224. 72 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Merits. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11, para. 44; Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, para. 186; and Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 19, para. 152. 73 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 71, paras. 25-27; Case of Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 46, para. 43; and Case of the “White Panel” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, paras. 76 to 79. 74 This Court has established that pecuniary damage entails “the loss or impairment of the victim’s income, the expenses incurred in connection with the facts of the case and such pecuniary consequences as may have a