61 (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)194 221. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation which results in harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation.195 All aspects of this obligation to make reparation are regulated by international law.196 The Court has based its decisions on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 222. Pursuant to the findings on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in the corresponding chapters, as well as in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,197 the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and by the representatives, and also the corresponding arguments of the State, so as to order measures tending to repair the said violations. A) Injured party 223. The Court reiterates that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be the person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right embodied therein. In this regard, the Court rejected the request to expand the number of presumed victims made by the representatives, because they were not mentioned in the Commission’s application brief (supra para. 82). Regarding Eduardo Aghinoni, the Court considers that he did not suffer a violation of his rights based on facts that occurred after he was deceased (supra para. 83). When examining the merits of the case, the Court found that the State had violated the human rights of Arlei José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral and Celso Aghinoni (supra paras. 146, 164, 180 and 214), and therefore considers them “injured parties” and beneficiaries of the reparations ordered below. B) i) Compensation Pecuniary damage 224. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the hypotheses in which it should be compensated.198 225. The Commission set out the general principles in this regard and emphasized that “the victims incurred important financial expenditure in order to obtain justice at the domestic level” and to overcome the consequences that the State’s actions caused them. 194 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 195 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 54, para. 25; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 404, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 156. 196 Cf. Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Merits. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11, para. 44; Case of Ríos et al., supra note 18, para. 395, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 404. 197 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 54, paras. 25 a 27; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 406, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 157. 198 The Court has established that pecuniary damage supposes “the loss or detriment to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal relationship to the facts of the case.” Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 405, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 162.