7 pesos as compensation for “loss of potential earnings”; this was equivalent to approximately US$388,500.00 at the exchange rate in force when the judgment was delivered.” (para. 245). This sum was awarded to the deceased victim’s common-law wife considering that she was the only persons who depended on the victim financially. 24. The Inter-American Court cannot bypass or ignore the measures taken by the State organs to comply with their obligation to make reparation. It is for the Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, to ensure, at the international level, that the measures taken by the State at the national level as regards reparation are in keeping with its international obligations. This means that the Court must make assessments such as: verifying whether the State compensated all aspects of the damage declared by the Court (supra para. 22), so that, if any aspect was not included among those that the State compensated, it would correspond to the Inter-American Court, as a subsidiary organ, to establish compensation for this element; establishing whether the State made its decision based on objective and reasonable criteria, and whether the said reparation was effective to achieve the purpose sought by compensation, which is to make financial reparation for the situation and the expenses arising from the violation, and to re-establish for those affected the situation or status they would have enjoyed in the absence of that damage or injury,23 and that would have allowed them to pursue their projects and goals. 25. Although Article 63(1) of the Convention does not condition the reparations established by the Court to the instruments of reparation that exist under the domestic laws of the State Party responsible for the violation, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, it is advisable that, when deciding whether or not to establish compensation to make reparation for a specific pecuniary damage, the Court assesses whether the State has already made reparation for this damage, in light of the American Convention and the principles of international law applicable to the matter. 26. In addition to the above, when examining the reparation awarded at the domestic level the Court must verify whether the State has complied with its obligation under the Convention to establish in its domestic law an effective remedy to repair human rights violations, to be implemented using proceedings that respect the rights and guarantees established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. These considerations are limited to examining the effectiveness of the remedy created to make reparation for the pecuniary damage. 27. In the instant case, the Colombian Council of State, the highest organ of the administrative-law jurisdiction of that country made the final determination of the compensation for loss of earnings based on explicit, clear, objective and reasonable criteria that sought to compensate the damage suffered. The way in which the Council of State calculated the loss of potential income differed from the way that the Court usually calculates it; nevertheless, the criteria used by this State organ was not contrary to the essential criteria intended to establish fair compensation for the financial damage caused to those who would have benefited directly from the income that the victim would have perceived. The decision adopted by the domestic courts was not arbitrary, but was founded on objective standards, which were known previously at the domestic level. Consequently, the Court cannot and must not disregard this domestic decision. 23 SHELTON, Dinah, Remedies in International Human Rights Law, op. cit., p. 22.