4 and apply criteria to repair a violation. This allows the domestic organs and institutions to enhance their ability to use procedures and criteria that accord with international standards concerning human rights. Evidently, the States “do not enjoy unlimited discretionary authority and it will correspond to the organs of the inter-American system, within the framework of their respective competences, to exercise subsidiary and complementary control.”11 14. Once the State’s international responsibility has been declared, it is incumbent on the Inter-American Court to comply with the obligation imposed on it by Article 63(1) of the Convention, to 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” (emphasis added). To comply with this obligation, the Court must verify that the reparations awarded in the domestic sphere conform to the international obligations and order measures to repair the damage that was not repaired adequately at the domestic level. The Court must assess whether it is appropriate to require the State to pay additional compensation, if compensation had been established by the domestic courts. It is not appropriate to require this measure when the State, through its domestic organs, has established and executed fair compensation that repairs the damage caused. 15. Consequently, the rulings of the Inter-American Court concerning reparations do not depend on and are not limited by the mechanisms or standards established under the domestic legal system, or by what has been decided by the domestic organs. When verifying the conformity of the reparations awarded at the domestic level, the Court does not have such restrictions. To the contrary, it is the final interpreter of the international obligation to make reparation in relation to human rights but, at the same time, it has the obligation to recognize and encourage, if applicable, the steps taken under domestic law that are in accord with international law. II. Compensatory damages for pecuniary harm 16. In international human rights law, compensatory damages have been considered the form of reparation par excellence to compensate the pecuniary harm resulting from the violation of human rights. 17. Under comparative domestic law, loss of income is one of the basic elements that almost all legal systems include as a matter that requires the damage to be compensated.12 Clearly, there are procedural differences and diverse criteria as regards how to determine the loss and the amounts awarded. It should also be recognized that, at times, the development of the right to reparation in the domestic sphere, owing to State responsibility for the violation of human rights, has been influenced by international human rights law. 18. Even though it is evident under international human rights law that the States are obliged to establish an effective remedy that permits making reparation for human rights violations, international laws do not expressly regulate the parameters that the 11 Cf. Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 47. 12 SHELTON, Dinah, Remedies in International Human Rights Law, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005, pp. 35-36.