92 to repair it adequately.178 In this regard, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which stipulates: 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. 231. Article 63(1) of the American Convention reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic 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, with the consequent obligation to cause the consequences of the violation to cease and to repair the damage caused.179 232. 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.180 It is also necessary to add any positive measures the State must adopt to ensure that the harmful acts, such as those that occurred in this case, are not repeated.181 The responsible State may not invoke provisions of domestic law to modify or fail to comply with its obligation to provide reparation, which is regulated by international law.182 233. Reparations consist of measures tending to eliminate the effects of the violations that have been committed. Their nature and amount depend on both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that as been caused. Reparations should not make the victims or their successors either richer or poorer and they should be proportionate to the violations that have been declared in the judgment.183 * * A) 234. * BENEFICIARIES Arguments of the Commission 178 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 11, para. 120; Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 86; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 133. 179 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 11, para. 121; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 178, para. 87; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 134. 180 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 11, para. 122; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 178, para. 88; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 135. 181 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 135; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 18, para. 88; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 54. 182 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 11, para. 122; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 178, para. 88; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 135. 183 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 11, para. 123; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 178, para. 89; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 136.