d) The amount of reparations 57. Whereas the Applicants are claiming lump sums of money in reparation for the moral prejudice suffered (supra, para 36), the Respondent State is insistent in establishing that none of the beneficiaries has justified his/her status either as beneficiary or indirect victim, and that none of them is therefore in a position to lay claim to any reparation (supra, para 43). 58. The Court first recalls that it has already disposed of this issue of persons who can lay claim to the status of victims in the instant case (supra, para. 50) and will not come back to it. 59. The Court further notes that the Respondent State does not contest the existence of moral prejudice to the detrimen t of the beneficiaries identified by the Court as the victims. 60. Regarding the quantification of reparation per se, the applicable principle is that of full reparation, commensurate with the prejudice suffered . As stated by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the above mentioned matter of I'Usine de Chorzow (The Factory at Chorz6w) , the State responsible for violation needs to make an effort "to wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all 22 probability, have existed if that act had not been committed". In the same vein, the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights stated that: "Reparations consist of measures tending to eliminate the effects of the violations that have been committed. Their nature and amount depend on both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that has been caused. Reparations should not make the victims or their successors either ncher 23 or poorer and they should be proportionate to the violations declared in the judgment". A, No. 17 , p. 47. u PCIJ The Factory at Chorz6w, (Merits), Judgment of 13 Septembe r 1928, Seriess Septembe r IACHR: Goiburu and Others v. Paraguay , (Merits, Reparations and Costs) , Judgment of 22 VIOlations that 2006, para. 143: "Reparation cons1sts of measures tending to eliminate the effects of the iary damage have been committed . Their nature and amount depend on both the pecuniary and non-pecun or poorer richer either s successor their that has been caused . Reparat1ons should not make the victims or CastilloIdem· and they should be proportionate to the violations declared in the judgment." See also: de Ia Paez v. Peru (Reparations and Costs) Judgment of 27 Novembe r 1998, para 51 , IACHR "Enfants 2001, May 26 of Judgment Costs), and ns rue'' (Viffagran-Morales and Others) v Guatemala (Reparatio Reparations para 63; Idem· Gonzales and Others ("Cotton Field' ) v. Mexico (Prelimina ry Objection s, Merits, 23 20