21 execution of the reparations ordered by the Court in the sphere of domestic law, the responsible State may not modify or fail to comply with them by invoking the provisions of domestic law. b) Obligation to repair 62. The obligation to repair, all aspects of which (scope, nature, methods and determination of the beneficiaries) are regulated by international law, may not be modified or not complied with by the State which has this obligation, by invoking provisions or difficulties of domestic law31. 63. In the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, the provisions applicable to reparations is Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which establishes 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 remedies and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.. 64. This norm grants the Inter-American Court a wide margin of judicial discretion to determine the measures that all the consequences of the violation to be repaired. 65. As the Court has stated,32 Article 63.1 of the Convention reproduces the text of a customary law norm that is one of the fundamental principles of the law of the And that is how this Court has applied it. international responsibility of States.33 When an unlawful act occurs that may be attributed to the State, this entails the latter’s international responsibility for violating an international norm. Based on this responsibility, a new juridical relationship is born for the State consisting in the obligation to make reparation.34 c) Scope of “effet utile” fifth considering paragraphs. Also, Cf. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1988, para. 57; P.C.I.J., Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, Series A./B-Fasc. No. 46, June 7th, 1932, p. 167; P.C.I.J., Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory, Series A./B.-Fasc.No. 44, February 4th, 1932, p. 24; and P.C.I.J., The GrecoBulgarian “Communities”, Series B.-No. 17, July 31st, 1930, pp. 32-33. 31 Cf., inter alia, Bulacio case, supra note 30, para. 72; Juan Humberto Sánchez case. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 149; and Cantos case. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 68. 32 Cf., inter alia, Bulacio case, supra note 30, para. 71; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 31, para. 148; and “Five Pensioners” case. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 174. 33 Cf. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184; Affaire relative à l’Usine de Chorzów (Demande en Indemnité) (Fond), Arrêt Nº 13, le 13 septembre 1928, C.P.J.I. Série A-Nº 17, p. 29; and Affaire relative à l’Usine de Chorzów (Demande en Indemnité) (Compétence), Arrêt Nº 8, le 26 juillet 1927, C.P.J.I. Série A-Nº 9, p. 21. 34 Garrido and Baigorria case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 40; and cf., inter alia, Bulacio case, supra note 30, para. 71; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 31, para. 147; and “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 32, para. 174.