29 are an insult not just to the Government of Peru but also and primarily to the Peruvian people, since such claims would make the Peruvian people into accomplices, of sorts, in these acts, although it has never been proven that the Peruvian State was responsible for those acts, even though the judgment might say otherwise. It pointed out that in the Honduran cases, this Court defined the expression “fair compensation” as compensatory and not punitive, and noted that “Although some domestic courts, particularly the Anglo-American, award damages in amounts meant to deter or to serve as an example, this principle is not applicable in international law at this time.” 96. Concerning the foregoing and in keeping with ample international case law, the Court notes that the possibility that the victims of human rights violations or their families may file suit against a State in an international court and participate in the proceedings directly or through their representatives is in itself a form of satisfaction (cfr. Cour eur. D. H. arrêt Kruslin 24 du avril 1990, série A no. 176-A, p. 25, párr. 39; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt McCallun du 30 août 1990, série A no. 183, p. 17, párr. 37; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt Wassink du 27 septembre 1990, série A no. 185A, p. 15, párr. 41; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt Koendjbiharie du 25 octobre 1990, série A no. 185-B, p. 42, párr. 34; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt Darby du 23 octobre 1990, série A no. 187, p. 14, párr 40; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt Lala c. Pays-Bas du 22 Septembre 1994, série A No. 297-A, p. 15, párr. 38; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt Pelladoah c. PaysBas du 22 septembre 1994, série A no. 297-B, p. 26, párr. 44; Cour eur. D. H., arrêt Kroon et autres c. Pays-Bas du 27 octobre 1994, série A no. 297-C, p. 59, párr. 45; Cour eur. D.H., arrêt Boner c. Royaume-Uni du 28 octobre 1994, série A no. 300-B, p. 76, párr. 46; Cour eur. D. H. arrêt Ruiz Torija c. Espagne du 9 décembre 1994, série A no. 303-A, p. 13, párr. 33), especially if the proceedings result in a condemnatory judgment, as in the instant case, which demonstrated the death and disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez and declared that Peru had violated articles 4, 5, 7 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Compensatory Damages, supra 75, para. 36; Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, supra 50, para. 31; El Amparo Case, Reparations, supra 50, para 62, and Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Reparations, supra 50, para. 58). It is important to note here that the Court has suitable mechanisms for publicizing its judgments, which is another form of reparation. 97. Finally, the Court considers it pertinent to point out that on several occasions, Peru has stated in writing that it is not responsible for the events that this Tribunal considers to have been proven in its Judgment. For example, in its brief of May 11, 1998, it stated that the State does not accept that decision [the declaration of the violation of the right-tolife of Ernest Rafael Castillo-Páez] to be valid, because the proceedings failed to demonstrate deprivation of life to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael [Castillo Péz] and less still that the State was the party allegedly responsible […] This assertion constitutes an additional source of pain for the victim’s next of kin and reflects an attitude contrary to the provisions of Article 68 of the American Convention. XII THE DUTY TO TAKE DOMESTIC MEASURES