19 his report, Dr. von Bennewitz cited from the physical and mental evaluations done of the victim by Dr. Laura Moya-Díaz and Dr. Eliana Horwitz, neither of whom was accredited "under the terms established in the Court’s order of August 29, 1998. " 79. Neither the victim nor the Commission presented observations on the reports in question. 80. The State did not offer any basis for its allegations concerning the seriousness of the medical reports. Moreover, it did not tender any evidence that would raise doubts as to the competence and responsibility of the "Colegios Médicos" of Chile and Peru or whether the two organizations had acted properly in commissioning the physicians to prepare the medical reports. 81. As for the allegation that the reports did not conform to some of the guidelines established by the World Health Organization, the Court does not consider this a pre-requisite for their admissibility. In keeping with Court practice, the reports are to be prepared by professionals who are competent in their field and include, in proper form, the information that the Court requires. As noted, the State furnished no evidence that would cause the Court to question the professional qualifications of the experts. Moreover, the required information was included in the reports in a manner that the Court considers appropriate. 82. As for the report presented by Dr. von Bennewitz, the Court notes that the case file shows that he was designated by the "Colegio Médico de Chile" to perform a “clinical and psychiatric” evaluation of the victim, as requested by the Court. For this reason, the Court believes that his report was not solely confined to matters pertaining to the physical health of the victim and so orders that the reports in question be added to the evidence in the instant case. VI DUTY TO MAKE REPARATIONS 83. Under operative paragraph six of the Judgment of September 17, 1997, the Court decided that Peru was "obliged to pay fair compensation to the victim and her next of kin and to reimburse them for any expenses they may have incurred in their representations before the Peruvian authorities in connection with this process, for which purpose the corresponding proceeding remains open. " 84. The applicable law in the matter of reparations is Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which articulates one of the fundamental principles of general international law, repeatedly elaborated upon by the jurisprudence (Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No.9, page 21 and Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, page 29; Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, page 184). This Court has applied this principle (in, among others, the Neira Alegría et al. Case, Reparations (Art . 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C, No. 29, para. 36; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 31, para. 15; Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 40). When