than the provisions of article 225 of the Paraguayan Constitution, exceeds the purpose of this case. Similarly, the Court recalls that this judgment has not declared a violation based on the alleged failure to establish a prior regulation of impeachment proceedings or a violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention or the principle of legality. Consequently, since there is no causal nexus, it is not appropriate to grant the measures requested in this regard. 197. In relation to the requests relating to training and educational programs, the Court notes that the violations of the rights declared in this judgment were not the result of shortcomings in the training or professionalization of the members of the branches of government or agents of justice. Consequently, there is no causal nexus between such measure and the facts of the case. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant the measures requested. 198. Lastly, the information provided by the State indicates that, since 2015, the impeachment procedure has been regulated by Senate Resolution No. 825. This legislation was not applied in the instant case or analyzed in this judgment. Therefore, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to order the reparation requested concerning the amendment of the law. Nevertheless, the Court deems it pertinent to recall that the different state authorities are obliged to exercise ex officio a control of conventionality between domestic laws and the American Convention within the framework of their respective terms of reference and the corresponding procedural rules. In this task, the domestic authorities must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation that has been made of it by the Inter-American Court, ultimate interpreter of the Convention.188 E. Compensation 199. The Commission asked that the State provide full reparation for the violations declared in the Merits Report, including the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. E.1. Pecuniary damage 200. With regard to the loss of earnings of Mr. Ríos Ávalos, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to “pay the unpaid wages from the date of the decision to remove him from office […] until the date of his reinstatement” and, if the latter was not possible, “to pay this until he reached 75 years of age.” They indicated that the amount corresponding to unpaid wages was “5,615,361,268.00 guaranis, equivalent to [US$]871,635.00 in [United States] dollars, and this [was] justified by the report on the salaries received by the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice from 2004 to 2019. They added that, “in order to update the amount in keeping with the evolution of the Consumer Price Index […] the sum resulting from the expert appraisal prepared by […] Celso Cañiza Paredes [was] claimed; […] this amounted to 7,340,304,834.00 guaranis, equivalent to [US$]1,139,386.66 [United States] dollars.” 201. In the case of Mr. Fernández Gadea, they asked that the Court order the payment of unpaid wages “from 2004 until the date of his decease.” They asked the Court to determine the corresponding amount. 202. They added that the respective calculations should be made based on the payroll and other benefits of the justices of the Supreme Court provided as evidence and on the variation in the Consumer Price Index published by the Central Bank of Paraguay. They indicated that the State “must deposit in the Retirement and Pension Fund the sums corresponding to all the Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 139. 188 48