53 it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.79 The Court has based its decision in this regard on 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 remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 142. 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. Thus, when an unlawful act occurs that can be attributed to a State, this gives rise to its international responsibility, with the consequent obligation to cause the consequences of the violation to cease and to repair the damage caused.80 143. 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, 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 it must establish the payment of compensation for the damage caused.81 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.82 144. Reparations consist of measures tending to eliminate the effects of the violations that have been committed. Their nature and amount depend on the characteristics of the violation and on 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 declared in the judgment.83 * * * 145. The Court considers that the persons it has determined to be victims of the violations declared in this judgment, whose names appear in the Appendix hereto, are the “injured party.” 79 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 139; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. , supra note 3, and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 8, para. 140. 80 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 79, para. 140; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. , supra note 3, para. 135, and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 8, para. 141. 81 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 79, para. 141; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. , supra note 3, para. 136, and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 8, para. 142. 82 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 79, para. 141; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. , supra note 3, para. 136, and Case of Servellón García et al. , supra note 7, para. 162. 83 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 79, para. 142; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. , supra note 3, para. 137, and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 8, para. 143.