90 caused.164 The responsible State may not invoke provisions of domestic law to modify or fail to comply with its obligation to repair, all aspects of which (scope, nature, methods and determination of the beneficiaries) are regulated by international law.165 195. It has to be taken into consideration that, in many cases of human rights violations, such as the instant case, restitutio in integrum is not possible; therefore, bearing mind the nature of the juridical right affected, reparation is made, inter alia, according to international case law, by means of fair indemnity or pecuniary compensation. It is also necessary to add any positive measures the State must adopt to ensure that the harmful acts, such as those that occurred in this case, are not repeated.166 196. As the term implies, reparations are measures intended to erase the effects of the violations committed. Their nature and amount depend on the damage caused at both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary levels. Reparations are not meant to enrich or impoverish the victim or his next of kin. In this respect, the reparations established should be in relation to the violations that have previously been declared.167 197. In accordance with the evidence gathered during the proceedings and in light of the foregoing criteria, the Court proceeds to consider the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives of the victim concerning reparations, in order to determine, first, who is the beneficiary of the reparations, and then to establish the measures of reparation to repair non-pecuniary damage, and also other forms of reparation, and costs and expenses. 198. The Court has determined that the facts of the instant case constitute a violation of Articles 13, 22(2), 22(3), 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(f) and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ricardo Canese, who, as the victim of the said violations, has a right to the reparations established by the Court. 199. The Court observes that, after the application had been filed, the State, through its courts, delivered relevant decisions regarding the claims made by the Commission and the representatives of the victim. In this respect, the Court acknowledges the importance for the instant case of the ruling handed down by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on December 11, 2002, which annulled the sentences against Mr. Canese, and recognizes the pertinence of the decision issued by the said Criminal Chamber on August 22, 2002, deciding that, thereafter, Ricardo Canese did not need to request authorization to leave Paraguay, as he had had to since April 1994. 164 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 2, para. 189; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 221; Case of Molina-Theissen. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 42. 165 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 2, para. 189; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 221; Case of Molina-Theissen. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 42. 166 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 2, para. 189; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 222; Case of Molina-Theissen. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 42. 167 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 2, para. 190; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 223; and Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 15, para. 194.