text: for which reparation by equivalent should be made. In hie view, when one began with the premise that all the damage and only the damage caused by a wrongful aat must be indemnified, there would be no reason to make a ‘dietinction between direct and indirect damage. In doctrine, he stated, an attempt wa8 made to make such a distinction. Jurisprudence seemed to suggest that the concept of indireot injury was generally used to justify not ewerding damages. However pno clear indications were given about the relationship between an event and demage that would justify its identification as indirect, Aa for a demarcation line over and above which injuries a”‘8 indemnifiable, the Spatial Rspporteur referred to the War_Riek mu&l~ caee of 1923, where the tribunal stated that it did not matter whether the lose wa6 indirect or direct, so long a6 there wa6 a clear and unbroken connection between a wrongful act and the loss complained of. m/ ’ Accordingly, in the Special Rapporteur’e view, pecuniary compensation must cover both the so-called direct damage to the State, such a8 that caused to its territory, its organisation in a broad sense, its property at home and abroad, ite milftary installations, its diplomatic premises, ships, aircraft and epaaecraf t,and the so-aalled indirect damage to the State, such as that caused through the person, natural or legal, of its nationals or agents, Within the latter context, the Special Rapporteur drew a distinction between patrimonial and personal damage. Personal damage included physical and moral damage to per60ner and involved such injuries as unjustified detention or any other restriction on freedom, torture or other physical injury to the person, anti death. In international case law and State practice, injuries of that kind were treated, in so far as they were capable of economic assessment, 233/ UNRIAA, vol. 7, pa 29.
analysis: The text discusses the concept of reparation for damage caused by a wrongful act, specifically in the context of international law. The Special Rapporteur refers to various aspects of damage, including territorial, organizational, property, and personal harm. This suggests that the category should relate to international law, state sovereignty, or human rights.