investigation of this case, have exacerbated the adverse effects on Mr. González Medina’s family, especially since the said family members have been actively involved in the search to obtain justice in the case from the start of Mr. González Medina’s disappearance. 306 274. Regarding the alleged violation of the protection of the family, the Court reiterates that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the application (supra para. 242). The Court considers that the arguments submitted by the representatives refer to alleged harm that, in substance, was examined by the Court in this chapter, and therefore does not find it necessary to make an additional ruling in this regard. 275. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State has violated the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Luz Altagracia Ramírez, Ernesto González Ramírez, Rhina Yokasta González Ramírez, Jennie Rossana González Ramírez and Amaury González Ramírez. X REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 276. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 307 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the obligation to repair this adequately, 308 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 309 277. 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 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 violated, repair the consequences of those violations, and establish compensation for the damage caused. 310 Hence, the Court has found that it is necessary to award different measures of reparation in order to redress the damage integrally. Consequently, in addition 306 Cf. Statement made by Luz Altagracia Ramírez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held in this case on June 28, 2011, and affidavits made by Ernesto, Jennie Rosanna and Rhina Yokasta González Ramírez on June 15 and 16, 2011, supra notes 99, 106 and 111, folios 1100, 1121 and 1129. 307 Article 63(1) of the Convention establishes 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.” 308 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra note 70, para. 97. 309 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, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra note 70, para. 97. 310 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra note 308, para. 26, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra note 70, para. 98. 84