article 20 indicates that “[c]ompensation should be provided for any economically assessable damage, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case, resulting from […] violations” and, among such damage, it specifically includes “[m]aterial damages and loss of potential earnings, including loss of earning potential” (paragraph (c)). Other instruments of international human rights law have also incorporated compensation as a form of reparation. 20. Meanwhile, under general international law, article 31 of the draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 15 establishes the obligation of responsible States “to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act” and indicates that the “injury includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State.” Article 34 stipulates the forms that full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act must take, which include compensation. Article 36 on compensation recognizes that: “[t]he State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution,” and also details that “[t]he compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is established.” The commentaries on several of the articles clarify that the concept of proportionality or equity plays an important role with regard to the different forms of reparation, including compensation. 16 21. As can be seen, these instruments of international law set out general parameters for establishing compensation, but do not elaborate on how to calculate or determine the amounts for compensation of pecuniary damage. Under the inter-American system, pursuant to the extensive competence granted to the Inter-American Court by Article 63(1) of the American Convention 17 and based on the principle that any violation of an international obligation gives rise to the State’s obligation to repair it, since its first rulings on the matter in 1989, the Court has been developing standards applicable to the compensation of damage, once it has been determined that the State is internationally responsible for the human rights violation, endeavoring to ensure full and effective reparation for the damage caused and taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties. 22. In its vast case law on reparations, the Court has developed the aspects of pecuniary damage that must be repaired in cases of human rights violations. The Court has established that pecuniary damage refers to the loss or prejudice to the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that are directly related to the facts of the case. 18 The elements of pecuniary damage recognized by the Inter-American Court include loss of potential earnings, indirect damage 15 Adopted by the United Nations International Law Commission at its fifty-third session (A/56/10) and attached by the General Assembly to its Resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001. 16 Cf. Commentaries on Articles 31, 35 (b), 37(3) and 39; and SHELTON, Dinah, “Righting Wrongs: Reparations in the Articles on State Responsibility”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 4, Oct. 2002, p. 851, and SHELTON, Dinah, Remedies in International Human Rights Law, op. cit., p. 94. 17 “When it decides that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected in this Convention, the Court shall order that the person injured is guaranteed the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also order, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that has constituted the violation of these rights be repaired and the payment of a fair compensation to the injured party.” 18 Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 162, and Cf. inter alia, Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 213, and Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 166. 5