141. Based on these facts, the Court finds that Mr. Díaz Peña’s detention conditions did not comply with the minimum material requirements of decent treatment and, consequently, taken as a whole, constituted inhuman and degrading treatment that violated the provisions of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Díaz Peña. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 142. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,252 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation,253 and that this article reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.254 143. The reparation of the harm 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. When this is not feasible, as on numerous occasion, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and repair the consequences produced by the violations.255 Consequently, the Court has found the need to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused.256 144. This Court has established that “the reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested in order to repair the respective damage. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law.”257 145. Based on the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapter, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representative, as well as the State’s arguments, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,258 so as to order measures to make reparation for the damage caused to the victim. The claims relating to the aspects of the case 252 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.” 253 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, para. 145. 254 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 43, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, para. 145.. 255 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, para. 157. 256 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, para. 91.. 257 Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191.para. 110, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, para. 146. 258 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 240. 51