54 85. In its constant 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.116 In this regard, Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: 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. 86. As the Court has indicated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention contains a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. Thus, when an unlawful act occurs, which can be attributed to a State, this gives rise immediately to its international responsibility for violating the relevant international norm, with the consequent obligation to cause the consequences of the violation to cease and to repair the damage caused.117 87. 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 caused.118 The responsible State may not invoke provisions of domestic law to modify or fail to comply with its obligation to provide reparation, all aspects of which (scope, nature, methods and determination of the beneficiaries) are regulated by international law.119 88. As it has already been indicated, in many cases of human rights violations, such as the instant case, restitutio in integrum is not possible; therefore, bearing in mind the nature of the juridical right affected, reparation is made, inter alia, according to international case law, by means of fair indemnity or pecuniary compensation. It is also necessary to add any positive measures the State must adopt to ensure that the harmful acts, such as those that occurred in this case, are not repeated.120 89. As the term implies, reparations are measures intended to erase the effects of the violations committed. Their nature and amount depend on the damage caused at 116 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 257; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 192; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 187. 117 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 223; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 258; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 193. 118 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 224; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 259; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 194. 119 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 224; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 259; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 194. 120 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 260; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 195; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 116, para. 189.