33 enshrined in Articles 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Messrs. Oscar José BlancoRomero, Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco Rivas-Fernández, namely: Alejandra Josefina Iriarte de Blanco, Gisela Romero, Aleoscar Russeth Blanco-Iriarte, Oscar Alejandro José Blanco-Iriarte, Orailis del Valle Blanco, Edwar José Blanco, Teodora Paz de Hernández, Roberto Aniceto Hernández, Nélida Marina HernándezPaz, Aida Benirgia Hernández-Paz, Mirna Esperanza Hernández-Paz, Aleidy Maritza Hernández-Paz, Brizania Hernández-Paz, Reina Alejandra Antune-Paz, Ramón Alberto Paz, Carlos Paz, Nélida Josefina Fernández-Pelicie, Francisco Jeremías Rivas, Eneida Josefina Rivas-Fernández, Yelitza Isabel Rivas-Fernández, Luis Ernesto RivasFernández, Rubén Alexis Rivas-Fernández, Miguel Enrique Galindo-Fernández, and José Daniel Rivas-Martínez. Likewise, the State failed to comply with its obligation under Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the above-listed next of kin of Messrs. Oscar José Blanco-Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco Rivas-Fernández; and Article 8(2) (Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. Alejandra Josefina Iriarte de Blanco. 67. This Court has held that it is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage carries the duty to make adequate reparations.44 In previous rulings on this subject, the Court took into consideration the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, under which: [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 party harmed. 68. Article 63(1) of the American Convention codifies a customary rule that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on the responsibility of States. The occurrence of an internationally wrongful act attributable to a State engages such State’s international responsibility and triggers the resulting duty to make reparations and to have the consequences of the violation remedied.45 69. Whenever practicable, reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring the situation prior to the violation. If impracticable, as is true of most cases, including the one at hand, the international Court is to determine the measures required to guarantee the enforcement of the impaired rights, repair the consequences of the violation and set compensation for the damage thereby 44 Cf. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 114; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 61; and Case of Acosta-Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 145. 45 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 243; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 62; and Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 44, para. 231.