28 amount depend on the damage caused at both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary level. Reparations are not supposed to enrich or impoverish the victim or his heirs23. 80. Regarding violations of the right to life, as in the case of five of the victims in the instant case, in view of the nature of the asset affected and according to international jurisprudential practice, the reparation is usually in the form of a pecuniary indemnity or compensation to which should be added the guarantee that the harmful act will not be repeated24. 81. The reparations established in this judgment must be consistent with the violations found in the judgment on merits delivered by the Court on March 8, 1998 (supra 3). VII BENEFICIARIES 82. The Court now proceeds to determine the person or persons who, in the instant case, should be considered the “injured party” in the words of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. Since the violations of the American Convention that the Court established in its judgment of March 8, 1998, were committed with regard to Anna Elizabeth Paniagua Morales, Julián Salomón Gómez Ayala, William Otilio González Rivera, Pablo Corado Barrientos, Manuel de Jesús González López, Augusto Angárita Ramírez, Doris Torres Gil, Marco Antonio Montes Letona, Oscar Vásquez and Erick Leonardo Chinchilla, it should be considered that they are all included in this category and are eligible for the reparations that the Court establishes. In the case of the victims who died, it will also be necessary to determine which of the reparations that are established in their favor may be transmitted by succession to their next of kin, and to which of the latter. 83. No one disputes that Augusto Angárita Ramírez, Doris Torres Gil and Marco Antonio Montes Letona are beneficiaries. Nor is there any dispute about the daughter of Anna Elizabeth Paniagua Morales (María Elisa Meza Paniagua) and the González Chinchilla family (María Elizabeth Chinchilla, Silvia Argentina, Karen Paola and Manuel Alberto, all González Chinchilla). The Court considers that this designation is in keeping with its jurisprudence, because they are beneficiaries as successors of their dead family members (infra 96, 167, 187 and 193). 84. The Court considers that the right to reparation for the damages suffered by the victims until the time of their death is transmitted by succession to their heirs. As this Court has stated: [i]t is a norm common to most legal systems that a person’s successors are his or her children. It is also generally accepted that the spouse has a share in the assets acquired during a marriage; some legal systems also grant the spouse inheritance rights along with the children. If there is no spouse or children, private common law recognizes the ascendants as heirs. It is the Court’s opinion that these rules, generally accepted by the 23 Cf. Blake case, Reparations, supra note 21, para. 34; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 53; and Garrido and Baigorria case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 43. 24 Cf. Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. Reparations, supra note 22, para. 41; Caballero Delgado and Santana para. 17; Neira Alegría et al. case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. supra note 19, para. 16; and Aloeboetoe et al. case, Reparations, supra 52; Garrido and Baigorria case, case, Reparations, supra note 19, 38; El Amparo case, Reparations, note 19, paras. 46 and 50.