21 90. Article 17 of the Convention mentions the origin of the family in marriage and, on this basis, sets forth certain protections for its members. Article 13 of the San Salvador Protocol, signed two decades after the Pact of San José, no longer refers to this juridical act as the foundation for the family, which Article VI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man does not refer to either. Clearly, marriage, as a contract or institution of civil Law, is not –and even less so in many countries of the hemisphere- the only way to establish a family. Modern family Law has shifted substantially in the direction imposed by liberty, equity, and reality. These other ways to constitute the household unit, as a result of the free decision of individuals, merits respect and protection by the law and by institutions, as comparative Law has asserted. 91. In the case to which the judgment of the Inter-American Court refers, and to which I attach this Opinion, the facts involving violations severely affected Mr. Tibi and Mrs. Baruet, as well as their child and the woman’s children, who lived with the couple and were members of the family unit in the manner that its adult members had freely decided. The abridgment may have influenced, together with other causes –which it is not for the Court to analyze- the breaking up of the family group and scattering of its members. In the process of hearing numerous cases of grave human rights violations, including more than a few regarding executions, forced disappearances, torture, or arbitrary detention, we have seen how the members of the family group of those who suffered those attacks directly have also suffered their consequences. 92. There could hardly be violations, among the most serious ones, to which those in closest emotional contact with the victim, based on family ties –broadly understoodwere indifferent, and which did not entail dissolving pressures on the union. The facts in violation have had various types of repercussions on these individuals: scattering the members of the family, depriving them of legitimate income, forcing them to incur extraordinary expenses, interfering in communication amongst them, altering or suppressing shared life, negatively affecting legitimate plans and projects, weakening household ties, generating physical or mental ailing of the next of kin, and so forth. 93. In accordance with the circumstances of each case, it is possible to raise the possibility of analyzing these facts as a consequence or projection of other violations that were committed or as a direct violation of Article 17 of the Pact of San José, independently of said abridgments, although also in connection with them. The Court chose the first option, precisely bearing in mind the circumstances of this case. I believe that, under those circumstances, this was the right decision. Family disintegration was a consequence, among others, of the violations committed against the accused, his spouse, and the children who constituted, with them, the family group. The Court has not omitted recognition and assessment of said violations: they were examined elsewhere in the judgment, and on this basis the Court reached the conclusion that both Mrs. Baruet and the children mentioned in said ruling are, themselves, victims of the facts in violation, and not merely entitled, for other reasons, to property-related reparations. XVIII. Restitutio in integrum 94. It has been customary for the Court to reflect, in its judgments on reparations, the well-known idea that “reparation of the damage requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishment of the prior situation.” And it has also been customary for it to immediately add: “When this is not possible, as in the instant case...”. This is so in the Tibi judgment. I also sign this statement because I agree that the best reparation would be “reestablishment of the prior situation” before the violation. However, this is not possible, as I have stated