142. Consequently, owing to the specific consequences in this particular case, the inexistence of clear norms and practices for the full exercise of judicial guarantees in the removal of provisional and temporary judges adversely affected the obligation to adopt appropriate and effective measures to guarantee judicial independence, which results in the failure to comply with Article 2 in relation to Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 143. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,178 the Court has established that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation,179 and that this provision “reflects a customary norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”180 144. In this case, the State indicated, as a general argument, that since “it had not failed in its international obligation to respect and guarantee the rights” of Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón, and had “adopted the necessary provisions of domestic law to ensure the enjoyment and exercise of those rights,” “no damage was caused to [her], or obligation to provide any reparation.” However, based on the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will analyze the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the position presented ad cautelam by the State. It will do so in keeping with the criteria established by the Court’s case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to provide reparation, so as to order measures intended to repair the damage caused to the victim. 145. The reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the re-establishment of the previous situation. It this is not possible, as in most cases, the Court will determine measures to ensure the rights violated, repair the consequences of the violations, and establish compensation for the damage caused.181 Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the damage in full; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition are especially relevant to the damage caused.182 178 Article 63(1) stipulates that, “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] 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.” 179 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, supra note 19, para. 86, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 19, para. 106. 180 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, supra note 19, para. 86, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 19, para. 106. 181 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra note 179, paras. 25 and 26; Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 14, para. 120; and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 126. 182 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 294; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 164, para. 396, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 170, para 226. 45