55 both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary levels.121 Reparations are not meant to enrich or impoverish the victim or his next of kin.122 In this regard, the reparations established should be in relation to the violations that have previously been declared.123 90. The Court considers that the State’s initiative acknowledging its international responsibility makes a positive contribution to its compliance with its commitments arising from the American Convention. 91. In accordance with the evidence gathered during the proceedings and in light of the above criteria, the Court proceeds to consider the claims presented by the Commission and by the representatives concerning reparations, in order to determine, first, who are the beneficiaries, and then to establish the measures of reparation to repair the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and other forms of reparation and, lastly, with regard to costs and expenses A) BENEFICIARIES 92. The Court will now summarize the arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State regarding who should be considered the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. Arguments of the Commission 93. The Commission considered that: a) The persons directly prejudiced by the facts of the violation have a right to reparation; in this case the Carpio, Villacorta, Rivas and Ávila families and Sydney Shaw Díaz; b) The obligation to repair does not arise from domestic law, but from the American Convention; consequently, in order to demand compensation, the beneficiaries only have to accredit their family relationship, but are not obliged to follow the procedure laid down by domestic legislation with regard to questions of inheritance, and c) If the beneficiaries were established according to domestic law, Karen Fischer could not be a beneficiary, and this would be “a terrible injustice.” Arguments of the representatives 94. The representatives alleged that: 121 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 225; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 261; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 196. 122 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 225; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 261; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 196. 123 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 261; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 196; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 116, para. 190.