11 32. Based on that stated in Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that all violations of an international obligation that has produced a damage entails the duty to repair it adequately17 and that said stipulation “captures a customary rule that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law regarding the responsibility of a State.”18 33. In paragraph 134 of the Judgment issued by the Court on May 6, 2008, the Tribunal considered appropriate that the determination of the amount and the payment of a just compensation for the expropriation of the property, as well as any other measure tending to repair the violations declared in detriment o Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga in the Judgment, be done by mutual agreement between the State and the representatives, within a six-month term computed as of the notification of said Judgment. If an agreement could not be reached, the Court would determine the corresponding reparations, as well as the costs and expenses. As indicated, the parties were not able to reach an agreement in the term granted (supra para. 2). 34. Due to the aforementioned, pursuant to the standard set out and reiterated in the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,19 as well as with the considerations stated regarding the merits and violations to the Convention declared in Chapter VI of the Judgment on Merits, this Tribunal will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the parties regarding the reparations, with the purpose of ordering the measures that tend to repair the damages derived from the violations declared. 35. Specifically, the Court considers that the case sub judice has specific characteristics since it deals with infringements derived from the lack of payment of a just compensation, pursuant with that established in Article 21(2) of the Convention. The Article itself states that in order to limit the right to private property a just compensation must be paid as part of the requirement of the norm in order to restrict the right. In this sense, the Court will analyze the parameters to set the value of the just compensation in the international jurisdiction, and later, it will determine the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and will order the corresponding compensations, as well as other measures for its comprehensive reparation. A) Injured party 36. The Court will consider Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga as the injured party, in her condition as victim of the violations declared to her detriment in Chapter VI of the Judgment of the Court on the Merits issued on May 6, 2008. B) Just compensation demanded by Article 21 of the American Convention 37. The representatives argued that a just compensation will be the one that allows the victim to maintain the integrity of his or her patrimony, that is, that does not result in a detriment to the patrimony; thus the value of the compensation must be identical to the value of the expropriated property that no longer is within the patrimony of the owner of the property. They added that a way to measure the value of the land is to take into consideration the market value of the property or the value necessary to acquire other properties of 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 245, and Case of Cabrera Garc��a and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 8, para. 208. 18 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. supra note 9, para. 50; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha de Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 245, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 8, para. 255. 19 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 17, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, de 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 257, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel V. México, supra note 8, para. 210.