10 of non-recidivism constitute the reparatio, for the survivors to manage at least to continue their existence or coexistence with the grief already established in their daily lives. 37. Reparatio does not end what happened, the violation of human rights. The wrong was already committed;42 reparatio avoids a worsening of its consequences (due to indifference of the social milieu, due to impunity, due to oblivion). From this perspective, reparatio takes on a dual meaning: it provides satisfaction (as a form of reparation) to the victims, or to their next of kin, whose rights have been abridged, while also reestablishing the legal order weakened by said violations –a legal order erected on the basis of full respect for the inherent rights of the human person.43 The legal order, thus reestablished, requires guarantees of non-recidivism of the injurious facts. 38. Reparatio disposes once again, reestablishes order in the lives of the surviving victims, but cannot eliminate the pain that is inevitably incorporated into their daily existence. The loss is, from this angle, strictly irreparable. Even so, reparatio is an unavoidable duty of those responsible for rendering justice. In a stage of greater development of human awareness, and therefore of the Law itself, undoubtedly the realization of justice overcomes any and every obstacle, even those derived from the abusive exercise of rules or precepts of substantive law, thus making crimes against human rights inextinguishable –as the Inter-American Court rightly and significantly recognizes in paragraphs 113-118 of the instant Judgment in the Bulacio case. Reparatio is a reaction, in the field of the Law, to human cruelty, expressed in various ways: violence in dealing with other human beings, impunity of those responsible with respect to the public authorities, indifference and oblivion in the social milieu. 39. This reaction of the legal order breached (the substratum of which is precisely respect for human rights) is ultimately moved by the spirit of human solidarity. The latter, in turn, teaches us that oblivion is inadmissible, because its connotation is one of complete lack of solidarity of the living for their deceased ones. Even though “modern” and “post-modern” society stimulate frivolousness (of consumption) and the ephemeral (the present) in vain, they are able to strip human beings of their unavoidable solitude in face of death (that of their beloved ones, and also their own). Death has over the centuries been linked to what is assumed to reveal destiny, and it is especially when facing death that each person becomes aware of his or her individuality.44 40. As the Inter-American Court has stated in the instant Judgment in the Bulacio vs. Argentina case, reparation, thus understood - providing satisfaction to the victims Bulacio at the public hearing before the Court, when she highlighted the importance of the realization of justice “so that what happened to [her] son never again happens to a youth (cf. I-ACtHR, Transcripción de la Audiencia Pública..., op. cit. supra n. (1), pp. 11-12), as well as by the representatives of the next of kin of the victim (cf. ibid., pp. 34-35). 42 . Human capacity both to promote good and for evil has not ceased to attract the attention of human reflection over the centuries; cf. F. Alberoni, Las Razones del Bien y del Mal, Mexico, Gedisa Edit., 1988, pp. 9-196; A.-D. Sertillanges, Le problème du mal, Paris, Aubier, 1949, pp. 5-412. 43 . As I pointed out in my Separate Concurring Opinion yesterday, with respect to Advisory Opinion No. 18 of the Inter-American Court, on the Legal Status and Rights of Migrants without Documents (on the 17.09.2203), para. 89. 44 . Ph. Ariès, op. cit. supra n. (7), pp. 87, 165, 199, 213, 217, 239, and 251.