36 [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 injured party (emphasis added). 121. This provision constitutes a rule of customary law that enshrines one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on state responsibility. Thus, when an illicit act is imputed to the state, there immediately arises a responsibility on the part of that state for the breach of the international norm involved, together with the subsequent duty to make reparations and put an end to the consequences of said violation.47 122. The reparation of harm caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring the situation that existed before the violation occurred. When this is not possible, as in the present case, it is the task of this Tribunal to order the adoption of a series of measures that, in addition to guaranteeing respect for the rights violated, will ensure that the damage resulting from the infractions is repaired, by way, inter alia, of payment of an indemnity as compensation for the harm caused.48 The obligation to make reparations, which is regulated in all its aspects (scope, nature, modalities, and designation of beneficiaries) by international law, cannot be altered or eluded by the State´s invocation of provisions of its domestic law.49 123. Reparations, as the term indicates, consist in those measures necessary to make the effects of the committed violations disappear. The nature and amount of the reparations depend on the harm caused at both the material and moral levels. Reparations cannot, in any case, entail either the enrichment or the impoverishment of the victim or his or her family.50 124. In light of the abovementioned criteria, the Court will proceed to analyze the submissions of the Commission and the representatives regarding reparations, in order to determine the pertinent remedial measures to be adopted in the instant case. * A) MORAL DAMAGES 47 Cf. Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 10, para. 86; Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 10, para. 52; and Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 16, para. 139. 48 Cf. Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 10, para. 87; Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 10, para. 53; and Case of Tibi, supra note 16, para. 224. 49 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10, para. 231; Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 10, para. 87; and Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 16, para. 140. 50 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 10, para. 89; Case of Tibi, supra note 16, para. 225; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 37, para. 261.