-75- 134. As the Court has indicated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. When an unlawful act occurs, which can be attributed to a State, this gives rise immediately to its international responsibility for violating the international norm, with the consequent obligation to cause the consequences of the violation to cease and to repair the damage caused.37 135. Whenever possible, reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, the international Court must determine a series of measures to ensure that, in addition to guaranteeing respect for the violated rights, the consequences of the violations are remedied and compensation paid for the damage caused.38 It is also necessary to add any positive measures the State must adopt to ensure that the harmful acts, such as those that occurred in this case, are not repeated.39 The responsible State may not invoke provisions of domestic law to modify or fail to comply with its obligation to provide reparation, all aspects of which (scope, nature, methods and determination of the beneficiaries) are regulated by international law.40 136. As the term indicates, 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 as been caused. Reparations should not make the victims or their successors either richer or poorer.41 In this regard, the reparations established should be proportionate to the violations that have previously been declared. 137. The Court will now proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin concerning reparations, in light of the above-mentioned criteria and the probative elements gathered during the proceedings in order to determine who are beneficiaries of the reparations and then to establish measures of reparation that would repair the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage; also to decide other forms of reparation and, lastly, costs and expenses. A) 138. BENEFICIARIES The Court will now summarize the arguments of the Inter-American 37 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 86; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 52; and Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 8, para. 139. 38 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 87; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 53; and Case of Tibi, supra note 20, para. 224. 39 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 88; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 54; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 9, para. 260. 40 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 231; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 87; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 53. 41 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 89; Case of Tibi, supra note 20, para. 225; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 9, para. 261.