173. The Chamber then convicted the alleged victim.187 His defense counsel presented a writ of cassation, but it did not contain any arguments on the participation of the judges in the investigative stage and at the trial. 174. As has been stated, the Court recognizes that standards for admissibility are recognized by the Convention,188 as long as those norms do not make the right to appeal futile.189 The Court did not find elements that would allow it to hold that a requirement of admissibility that indicates the sole grounds of recusal in Article 52 of the CPP is unreasonable. The Court notes that, contrary to the position of the defense counsel on the other issues contained in the appeal, no recourse was presented against the decision that denied the recusal. 175. The Court, thus, finds that the State is not responsible for violating Article 25(1) of the American Convention regarding the recourses presented by the alleged victim to question the actions of the members of the Criminal Chamber who had intervened in the investigation of the same cases. VII. REPARATIONS 176. On the basis of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the 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.190 177. Reparation for the harm caused by the infringement of an international obligation requires, to the extent possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration of the prior situation. If this is not possible, as occurs in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the infringed rights and to redress the consequences of the violation.191 The Court, therefore, has found it necessary to grant diverse measures of reparation to fully redress the harm; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, other measures such as restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have a special relevance for the harm caused.192 178. The Court has established that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the proven harm, as well as the measures requested to redress the resulting harm. The Court, therefore, must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law.193 187 Cf. Second Criminal Chamber, Judgment N° 116 of October 31, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1067 to 1103) Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, para. 94 and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, para. 126. 188 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, paras. 52 and 53. Likewise, mutatis mutandi, Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 120. 189 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26 and Case of Girón et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 15, 2019. Series C No. 390, para. 124. 190 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Sentence of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26 and Case of Girón et al. v. Guatemala, para. 125. 191 Cf. Case of the “Las 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 Girón et al. v. Guatemala, para. 125. 192 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110 and Case of Girón et al. v. Guatemala, para. 126. 193 34