23 domestic courts. All it is empowered to do in this Case is call attention to the procedural violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention which have injured Mr. Raymond GeniePeñalba, the interested party in the matter; however, it lacks jurisdiction to remedy those violations in the domestic arena, a task, as has been pointed out before, that falls to the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua when it disposes of the application for judicial review which is yet to be resolved. 95. In view of the nature of the violation which the Court has found attributable to the Government in this Case -the authorities' obstruction of the judicial investigation and unwarranted delay in the process- which it will mention in the operative part of this Judgment, any attempt to determine compensation for damages would be based on mere speculation as to the outcome if this type of violation had not occurred (Eur. Court HR, Case of Schmautzer v. Austria, judgment of 23 October, 1995, Series A no. 328-A; Eur. Court H.R., Hauschildt judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154; Eur. Court H. R., Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1933, Series A no. 261-C and Eur. Court HR, Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312) and therefore refrains from so doing. On the other hand, it considers that, in fairness, it must order the Government to pay pecuniary compensation to the father of young Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo, which it fixes at US$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in the local currency of Nicaragua, to be paid, without deduction for taxes, within six months of the date of notification of this Judgment. The amount to be paid shall be calculated on the basis of the exchange rate between the United States dollar and the Nicaraguan currency on the New York stock exchange on the day before the payment is made. 96. Since the Court has found that human rights protected by the Convention have been violated, it finds that Nicaragua must use every means at its disposal to ensure by law the free and full exercise of human rights; as a consequence of that obligation, it must secure the restitution of the violated right and, where appropriate, remedy the delay that is the subject of the violation indicated. IX 97. Now, therefore: THE COURT, unanimously 1. Dismisses the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies interposed by the State of Nicaragua. unanimously 2. Decides that the State of Nicaragua has violated Article 8(1) of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Mr. Raymond Genie-Peñalba. unanimously 3. Decides that the State of Nicaragua has not violated Article 2, 25, 24 and 51(2) of the Convention.