410. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to protection of the family established in Article 17(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to ensure rights established in Article 1(1) of this treaty, to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. 411. With regard to the other presumed victims, since no violations in this regard were alleged (even though in the arguments of the FIDH and in the statements of the presumed victims and their family members there are some references to the distance that the family members had to travel and the difficulties faced by the latter to visit them in prison), there is insufficient evidence to allow this Court to substantiate that, in those cases, there has been non-compliance with the State’s duty to protect the family. VIII – REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 412. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention,402 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation,403 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.404 413. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, when possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine other measures to ensure the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of the violations.405 Accordingly, in this case, the Court has considered the need to award different measures of reparation in order to ensure the violated right and redress the harm fully.406 414. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must take these factors into consideration in order to rule appropriate and in accordance with the law.407 415. According to the considerations on the merits, and the violations of the American Convention declared in Chapter VII of this Judgment, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the Inter-American Commission and the common interveners of the representatives of the victims in light of the criteria established in its case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures aimed at 402 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[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.” 403 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para.25, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 137. 404 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 43, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 137. 405 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para.26, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 236. 406 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 226, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru, para. 236. 407 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 139. 136