12 latter had already acknowledged its international responsibility. The Court, however, held that the agreement did not constitute an agreement between the parties since it was not signed by the Argentine Republic, which was the party in the case (supra 18 and 24). Finally, at the January 20, 1998 hearing, Argentina argued that it would have difficulties adopting certain measures given the federal structure of the State (supra 34). 46. When a federal state’s constituent units have jurisdiction over human rights matters, Article 28 of the Convention makes provision for said federal state becoming a party to the Convention. However, from the time of its approval and ratification of the Convention, Argentina has conducted itself as if the federal State had jurisdiction over human rights matters. Hence, it can hardly argue the contrary now, as this would imply a breach of the principle of estoppel. As for the "difficulties" invoked by the State at the January 20, 1998 hearing, the Court should note that the case law, which has stood unchanged for more than a century, holds that a State cannot plead its federal structure to avoid complying with an international obligation (Cf. arbitral award of July 26. VII. 1875 in the Montijo Case, LA PRADELLE-POLITIS, Recueil des arbitrages internationaux, Paris, 1954, t. III, p. 675; decision of the France-Mexico Mixed Claims Commission of 7.VI.1929 in the Hyacinthe Pellat case, U.N., Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. V, p. 536). VII COMPENSATION 47. The Court will now proceed to decide on the reparations sought by the victims’ relatives. The first type of reparation requested is compensation. As pointed out earlier in this judgment (supra 44), indemnizations are compensatory in nature and hence are to be awarded to the degree and in the measure sufficient to compensate for the material and moral damages suffered. The issue of honoraria and expenses incurred by virtue of these proceedings is examined in this judgment (infra 75-85). 48. In the Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, the Court invoked arbitral case law wherein it is a general principle of law that compensation comprise both expenses and loss of earnings (Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, supra 40, para. 50). 49. In the instant case, the victims detained in the city of Mendoza sustained moral damages by being subjected to aggression and abuse that ultimately caused their death. As this Court found previously, it is clear that the victims suffered moral damages, for it is characteristic of human nature that anyone subjected to aggression and abuse will experience moral suffering (Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, supra 40, para. 52; Neira Alegría et al. Case, Reparations, supra 40, para. 57). No evidence is required to arrive at this conclusion; Argentina’s own acknowledgment of its responsibility is sufficient. 50. The Court has stated, and now reiterates (Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, supra 40, para. 54; Cf. El Amparo Case, Reparations, supra 40, paras. 43 and 46; Neira Alegría et al. Case, Reparations, supra 40, paras. 63 and 65 and Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Reparations, supra 40, paras. 60 and 61), that the right to compensation for damages suffered by the victims up to the time of their death is transmitted to their heirs by succession. On the other hand, the damages