89 Argument of the State 191. The State rejected any claim of the applicants for any kind of reparation or the costs of the national and international proceedings. Considerations of the Court 192. As stated in the preceding chapters, the Court has decided that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 13, 22(2), 22(3), 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(f) and 9 of the Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ricardo Canese. In its consistent case law, the Court has established that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.162 To this end, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, according to which: If 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. Consequently, the Court will now consider the measures necessary to repair the damage caused to Ricardo Canese as a result of the said violations of the Convention. 193. As the Court has indicated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention contains a norm of customary law that is one of the fundamental 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.163 194. 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 from November 12 to 15, 2001, which involved an expenditure of US$1(1)35.00 (one thousand one hundred and thirty-five United States dollars); telephone and fax use, which signified an expenditure of US$2,500.00 (two thousand five hundred United States dollars); expenses for mailing correspondence, which signified an expenditure of US$411.76 (four hundred and eleven United States dollars and seventysix cents), and supplies (copies, stationery, etc.), which signified an expenditure of US$1,525.00 (one thousand five hundred and twenty-five United States dollars); and reimbursement of the expenditure assumed by CEJIL to litigate the case before the Court, which is estimated at US$2,959.91 (two thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine United States dollars and ninety-one cents) corresponding to the expenditure related to the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court. 162 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 2, para. 187; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 219; and Case of Molina-Theissen. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 39. 163 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 2, para. 188; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 220; and Case of Molina-Theissen. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 40.