45 111. In the light of the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State and pursuant to the considerations on the merits included in the preceding chapters, the Court declared the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 4 (Right to Life) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Santiago Gomez-Palomino; the violation of the right protected by Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón, Mrs. Esmila Liliana Conislla-Cárdenas, Mrs. María Dolores Gómez-Palomino, Mrs. Luzmila Sotelo-Palomino, Mr. Emiliano Palomino-Buitrón, Mrs. Mónica Palomino-Buitrón, Mrs. Mercedes Palomino-Buitrón, Mrs. Rosa Palomino-Buitrón, Mrs. Margarita Palomino-Buitrón and of the girl Ana María Gómez-Guevara, as well as the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino and his next of kin. Finally, the Court declared the failure of Peru in complying with the duty established in Articles 2 of the Convention and I (b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 112. This Court has established that it is a principle of International Law that the violation of an international obligation, attributable to the State, involves the obligation to provide adequate reparations of the damage inflicted and to have the consequences of the violation remedied.73 Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, wherein a rule of custom which is one of the fundamental tenets of contemporary International Law on the responsibility of States is codified, [i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] Convention, the Court shall rule that the party harmed 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 party harmed. 113. The reparation of the damage caused by the infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of the return to the state of affairs prior to the infringement. If this is not feasible, as it happens in the majority of cases, the International Court shall determine the measures to be ordered to protect the rights that were affected, as well as to make reparations for the consequences the infringements brought about and shall determine a compensation for the damage caused.74 It is necessary to add the positive measures that the State must adopt to prevent repetition of the harmful events such as those that occurred in the instant case.75 The obligation to provide reparations, which is ruled in all its aspects (scope, nature, methods and 73 Cf. Case Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 4, para. 114; Case Gutierrez-Soler, supra note 4, para. 61, and Case Acosta Calderón, supra note 9, para. 145. 74 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 244; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 4, para. 115, and Case of Gutierrez-Soler, supra note 4, para. 63. 75 Cf. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 4, para. 115; Case of Gutierrez-Soler, supra note 4, para. 63, and Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 9, para. 147.