25 Court, the parties did not submit for its consideration or decision any of the established grounds for the early conclusion of the proceeding.50 Regarding the State’s affirmation that it is the parties who must agree on the reparations and, then, the Court, it should be noted that, in general, once the Court has ruled on the merits, it passes immediately to the reparations stage or, in the same judgment, rules on preliminary objections, merits and reparations.51 It is worth stressing that the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement between the parties, with the direct intervention of an organ of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, was entrusted to the Inter-American Commission by Article 48(1)f) of the American Convention, so that it could take the necessary steps to ensure that the States would provide a solution to the possible human rights violations in the domestic sphere. However, as the Court has affirmed, “the Commission should attempt sush friendly settlement only when the circumstances of a controversy make that option suitable or necessary at the Commission’s sole discretion.”52 56. Regarding the objections raised by the State concerning the compensation, it is worth indicating that, as in the case of other international courts, and as has been pointed out repeatedly in this judgment, the Court has flexible standards for assessing evidence (supra 42, 46 and 48) and applying sound criticism53 when establishing the reparations in a case and, if applicable, the respective compensation. In order to determine of the amounts of the compensation, international courts usually use the principle of fairness according to the circumstances of the specific case, and thus order reasonable compensation for the damage caused; in general, they do not base this on invariable, rigid formulas as the State suggests.54 To the contrary, and as this Court has indicated on repeated supra note 48, paras. 24, 25 and 27; El Amparo case, Reparations, supra note 46, paras. 4 and 5; El Amparo case, supra note 48, paras. 19 and 20; Maqueda case, supra note 48, paras. 26 and 27; and Aloeboetoe et al. case, supra note 48, para. 22. 50 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 9 to 26. 51 Cf., inter alia, Bulacio case, supra note 13; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20; Trujillo Oroza case, supra note 15, paras. 36 and 37; El Caracazo case, supra note 48; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 20; and the Constitutional Court case, supra note 15. 52 Genie Lacayo case, supra note 9, para. 39; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 17, para. 26; Godínez Cruz case, Preliminary objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 47; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case, Preliminary objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 49; and Velásquez Rodríguez case, Preliminary objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 44. 53 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 42; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 30; the “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 20, para. 65; and Cantos case, supra note 15, para. 27. 54 Gloyal v. UNESCO, 43 I.L.R. 396 (Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization, 1969); Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (Advisory Opinion) 1956, I.J.C. 77. Cf., inter alia, Bulacio case, supra note 13, paras. 84, 88, 96, 100, 102, 150, 152 and 153; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 163, 166, 168, 172, 177, 193, 194 and 195; the “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 20, paras. 180, 181 and 182; Cantos case, supra note 15, para. 72; Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 47 and 84; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 85, 86, 87, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109 and 133; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 20, paras. 215, 216, 218 and 219; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, paras. 73, 74 a), 74 b), 77, 83, 89, 128 and 129; Bámaca Velásquez case, Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 51 b), 54 a), 54 c), 56, 60, 66 and 91; Cantoral Benavides case, Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 50, 51, 53, 57, 62 and 87; the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 20, paras. 167, 168 and 169; Cesti Hurtado case, Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 51, 53, 72 and 73; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 80, 84, 88, 90 and 109; the White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 99,