4 incompatibility determines the invalidity of the act, which signifies that the said act cannot produce legal effects. 16. The judgment establishes that the State, the Inter-American Commission and the victims, their next of kin or their authorized representatives must reach agreement on the corresponding reparations. Thus, the determination of the reparations is subject to an agreement between the parties – a concept that includes the victims, because it refers to acts relating to the procedural stage of reparations, in which they become a party to the proceeding; this is not in itself decisive, but must be revised and approved by the Court. There is, therefore, a first limit to the dispositive possibilities of the parties, which is established having regard to the necessary fairness in procedures to protect human rights and which is even extended to friendly settlements before the Inter-American Commission. 17. Evidently, the above-mentioned agreement on reparations only extends to matters that, by their nature, may be stipulated by the parties – with the proviso indicated above – and not to matters that have been removed from this, owing to their social impact and importance. This implies another limit to the dispositive possibilities of the parties: they may agree on compensation, but they may not negotiate or decide on other types of reparation, such as the criminal prosecution of those responsible for the violations that have been recognized – unless it is a case of crimes whose prosecution is subject to a private proceeding, an infrequent occurrence in this sphere – or on the modification of the applicable legal framework in order to bring it into harmony with the provisions of the Convention. These are persisting State obligations, in the terms of the Convention and of the Court’s judgment, whatever the settlement agreed between the parties. Sergio García-Ramírez Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary