63 IX REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION Obligation to Repair 137. In accordance with the content of the preceding chapters, the Court has found that, in this case, the rights established in Articles 9 and 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and in Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 9 and 1(1) thereof, have been violated to the detriment of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores, and Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, has been violated to the detriment of Danilo and Ana Teresa Blanco De La Cruz, the victim’s children; Alcira Domitila Flores Rosas widow of De La Cruz, the victim’s mother; and Alcira Isabel, Celso Fernando and Jorge Alfonso De La Cruz Flores, the victim’s siblings. 138. On many occasions this Court has stated that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm, gives rise to an obligation to provide adequate reparation for this harm.118 To this end, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, according to which: 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 that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 139. As the Court has indicated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention contains a norm of customary law that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. When an unlawful act occurs, which can be attributed to a State, this gives rise immediately to its international responsibility for violating the international norm, with the consequent obligation to cause the consequences of the violation to cease and to repair the damage caused.119 140. Whenever possible, reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, the international Court must determine a series of measures to ensure that, in addition to guaranteeing respect for the violated rights, the consequences of the violations are remedied and compensation paid for the damage caused.120 It is also necessary to add any positive measures the Stat must adopt to ensure that harmful acts, such as that occurred in the instant case, are not repeated.121 The 118 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 257; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 192; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 27, para. 187. 119 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 27, para. 223; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 258; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 193. 120 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 224; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 259; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 194. 121 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 260; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 195; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 27, para. 189.