47 163. It is a principle of International Law that when an international obligation is violated and produces an injury, the duty arises to adequately compensate for it. The Court has based its decisions on this matter on 63(1) of the American Convention.106 164. In accordance with its findings on the merits and the violations of the Convention found in Section VIII, as well as the criteria established by its own jurisprudence in relation to the nature and reach of the obligation to compensate,107 the Court will analyze the claims by the Commission and by CEJIL and IDHUCA with respect to reparations in order to establish measures to redress the injuries of the present case. A) Injured parties 165. The Court will now proceed to determine which individuals should be considered “injured parties” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention and, as such, be entitled to the reparations ordered by the Tribunal. 166. In the present case, the Commission and the common intervener alleged that the next of kin of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto hold the right to reparations in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention. The common intervener also alleged that Ramón Mauricio García Prieto holds a right to reparations. 167. The Court finds that the “injured parties” in the present case are José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto, due to their character as victims of the violations of human rights found by this Tribunal (supra paras. 116, 121, and 160). As a result, these individuals are entitled to the reparations established by the Tribunal in terms of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. B) Compensation 168. In accordance with the dispositions of Article 63(1) of the Convention, it is incumbent upon this Tribunal to determine the measures necessary to redress the violations which were declared to have occurred to the detriment of José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto. B.1) Pecuniary Damages 106 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Cantoral Huamani and García Santa Cruz, supra note 10, para. 156; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 131; and Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 10, para. 126. 107 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 106, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 13, paras. 76 to 79; Case of Cantoral Huamani and García Santa Cruz, supra note 10, para. 157; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 132; and Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 10, para. 127.