98 . regulated by International Law.363 The Court has adopted decisions in this regard based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 396. The reparations for the violations to human rights have been determined by the Tribunal based on the evidence provided, its jurisprudence, and the arguments of the parties, according to the corresponding circumstances and details, both in what refers to pecuniary damages364 and non-pecuniary damages.365 The damages of this last category can be compensated through reparations determined by the Tribunal in a reasonable application of judicial discretion and in equity,366 as well as through other forms of reparation, such as measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition of the facts. In the cases in which the Tribunal has ordered the payment of compensations of a pecuniary nature, it has established that the State may comply with its obligations through a payment in dollars of the United States of America or an equal amount in the national currency, which applies based on the exchange rate between both currencies in force in the international market,367 having only to satisfy the need to preserve the value of the amounts set in the concept of reparation, in relation to the time required for the processing of the case as well as the time that may go by until the payment ordered is actually made. 397. Once the non-compliance of the State’s obligations to guarantee (Article 1(1)) the rights enshrined in Articles 5(1) and 13(1) of the Convention has been established, and based on the criteria determined in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal on the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,368 the Court will consider the claims of the Commission and the representatives and the State’s arguments. * * * 362 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 29, para. 198; and Case of Bayarri, supra note 38, para. 119. 363 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Surinam. Merits. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11, para. 44; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 29; and Case of Bayarri, supra note 38, para. 120. 364 This Tribunal has established that pecuniary damage entails “the loss or impairment of the victim’s income, the expenses incurred in connection with the facts of the case and such pecuniary consequences as may have a causal link to the facts of the instant case.” Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 44. 365 Non-pecuniary damages may include the suffering and affliction caused to the direct victim and their next of kin, as well as the detriment to very significant personal values, as well as non-pecuniary alterations in the conditions of existence of the victim or their next of kin. Since it is not possible to assign a precise monetary equivalent to non-pecuniary damages, it can only be the object of compensation through payment of an amount of money or the delivery of goods or services that may be valued in monetary terms, which the Tribunal will establish […] in terms of equity, as well as through the realization of acts or works that are public in their scope or effects, which result in the acknowledgment of the victim’s dignity and avoid the repetition of violations to human rights. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84. 366 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 365, para. 84; Case of Ticona Estrad v. Bolivia, supra note 48, para. 130; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 242. 367 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Surinam. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 89. 368 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 362, paras. 25-27; Case of Garrido and Baigorria. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43; and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, paras. 76 to 79.