239. Regarding the analysis of the denial of access to the action for constitutional protection, the Court has already set out its considerations and concluded that preventing the members of the Constitutional Tribunal from making use of the remedy of amparo constituted a violation of the right to judicial protection. 240. Having determined that the termination of the judges was an arbitrary measure, contrary to the American Convention, and that the impeachment was conducted without observing judicial guarantees, it is unnecessary to examine whether the appointment of the new judges represented arbitrary and unequal treatment in relation to the judges who were removed and not re-elected.284 241. In addition, although it has been argued that some judges who had been terminated owing to the problems of their appointment by the “single list” were re-elected to the Constitutional Tribunal because of their political affinity to the Government, the evidence provided285 is insufficient to assess whether there was discrimination for political reasons in the instant case, taking into account that the procedure for the appointment of the judges who presumably had been the object of political favoritism has not been explained or analyzed in detail. 242. Considering the foregoing, this Court finds that, in the instant case, Article 24 of the Convention was not violated. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 243. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,286 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has resulted in harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation,287 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.288 244. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been 284 Similarly, Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 200, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 122. 285 In this regard, witness Lucero, who was a member of Congress at the time of the facts and took part in the discussions concerning the termination of the judges and the impeachment proceedings, indicated that “[t]wo judges were re-appointed merely because they had political support among the parliamentary majority.” Testimony of witness Lucero (merits file, tome III, folio 1372). 286 Article 63(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 287 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 161. 288 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 161. 73