2 the international norms of protection2 (in the terms of Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). 5. Contemporary doctrine, furthermore, has identified distinct forms of reparation (restitutio in integrum, satisfaction, indemnizations, rehabilitation of the victims, guarantees of non repetition of the harmful facts, among others) from the perspective of the victims, of their needs, aspirations and claims3. In fact, the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights4 disclose to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights quite a wide horizon in the mattter of reparations5. 6. Nevertheless, the contents and scope of the measures of reparation in international law remain surrounded by a certain degree of imprecision, despite the existence of a secular case-law on the matter. This is due in great part to the fact that such case-law has developed as from analogies with solutions of private law, and, in particular, of civil law (droit civil), in the ambit of national legal systems. 7. Juridical concepts, while encompassing values, are product of their time, and as such are not unchangeable. The juridical categories crystallized in time and which came to be utilized - in a context distinct from the ambit of the International Law of Human Rights - to govern the determination of reparations were strongly marked by 2. It may be recalled that, half a decade ago, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993), the main document adopted by the II World Conference of Human Rights, urged the States to "abrogate legislation leading to impunity for those responsible for grave violations of human rights, (...) and prosecute such violations (...)" (part II, paragraph 60). 3. Theo van Boven (special rapporteur), Study Concerning the Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms -Final Report, U.N./Commission on Human Rights, doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8, of 02.07.1993, pp. 1-65. 4. Article 63(1) of the American Convention provides 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 fair compensation be paid to the injured party". 5. Certainly much wider than that which ensues from the terms of Article 50 of the European Convention of Human Rights, restrictively interpreted and applied by the European Court of Human Rights throughout the years and until the recent entry into force of Protocol n. 11 to the European Convention, on 01 November 1998.