8 respondent State may alter by invoking its domestic law. (Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of August 27, 1998, Series C No. 39, para. 42; Loayza Tamayo Case, Reparations, supra 31, para. 86; Castillo Páez Case, Reparations, supra 31, para. 49, and Suárez Rosero Case, Reparations, supra 31, para. 42) 33. As the Court has stated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention codifies a rule of customary law which, moreover, is one of the fundamental principles of current international law on the responsibility of States. (Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 10, 1993, Series C No 15, para. 43, and cfr. Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No 9, p. 21 and Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p 29; Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184) This is the sense in which this Court has applied that provision. (inter alia, Garrido and Baigorria, Reparations, supra 32, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo, Reparations, supra 31, para. 84, and Castillo Páez Case, Reparations, supra 31, para. 50). When a wrongful act occurs that is imputable to a State, the State incurs international responsibility for the violation of international law, with the resulting duty to make reparation, and the duty to put an end to the consequences of the violation. 34. Reparation involves, therefore, measures that are intended to eliminate the effects of the violation that was committed. Their nature and amount depend on the damage done both at the material and moral levels. Reparations are not meant to enrich or impoverish the victim or his heirs. (cfr. Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations, supra 32 para. 43; Castillo Páez, Reparations, supra 31, para. 53, and del ferrocarril de la bahía de Delagoa Case, LA FONTAINE, Pasicrisie internationale, Berne, 1902, p. 406) VII BENEFICIARIES 35. As regards the beneficiaries of the reparations, in their March 27, 1998 brief, the parents and brothers of Mr. Nicholas Blake asserted that they had been directly injured by the violations of the fundamental rights of their son and brother. 36. In this respect, the Commission stated in its brief of the same day, that the Court has construed the concept of family in a flexible and broad manner, and that the Court’s jurisprudence coincides with the jurisprudence of other international organs. For that reason, it deemed that Richard Blake, Mary Blake, Richard Blake Jr. and Samuel Blake should be entitled to the reparations in the present case. 37. The State maintains that the relatives of Mr. Nicholas Blake may not receive reparations in their own right, since the parents and brothers of the victim have not demonstrated that they had a relationship of dependence on him. 38. This Court already recognized, in operative paragraphs 1 and 2 of the January 24, 1998 Judgment, that violations of Articles 8(1) and 5 of the Convention, in