89. The Court would note that, because of the profound suffering inflicted on the family members of Herminio Deras García due to his extrajudicial execution and the persistence of absolute impunity for many years, in addition to the other violations against various members of the family, the arbitrary arrests of many of them, and the situation caused by the forced exile of two of the family members, including their inability to attend the funerals of their loved ones, the State is responsible for violating the right to personal integrity set forth in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, in injury of the 17 family members of Herminio Deras García named in paragraph 94 of this judgment. VIII REPARATIONS 90. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has held that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 78 91. Reparation of harm brought about by the violation of an international obligation means full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which includes the restoration of the prior situation. If this is not possible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will order measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of the violations. 79 It has seen the need to award different measures of reparation in order to provide comprehensive redress for the harm; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, as well as guarantees of non-repetition, are particularly relevant to the harm caused. 80 92. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven damages, as well as with the measures requested to repair the resulting damage. Therefore, the Court must observe such congruence in order to adjudge and declare according to law. 81 93. In view of the violations of the American Convention declared in the above chapters, and in light of the standards established in the Court’s case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to redress, 82 the Court will examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State’s arguments, and in the following paragraphs order measures of reparation for these violations. With regard to the position taken by Honduras, it should be emphasized that the State expressed its willingness to adopt most of the measures of redress proposed by the Commission and the representatives and pledged to provide them. However, certain details of some of the measures requested by the representatives were not specifically addressed in the State's brief of acquiescence. The Court notes that the State, in its brief of “full acquiescence in the case,” stated that one of the purposes of its recognition was to “reach agreement on measures for comprehensive redress of the damage, as will be set forth in 78 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 83. 79 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 26, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 190. 80 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79 to 81, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 190. 81 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para.110, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 83. 82 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 27, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 192.