100 244. The representatives alleged that the detention conditions of Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, and the transfers to penitentiary centers which were distant from their places of residence, which rendered visits by their next of kin difficult, caused suffering thereto and constitutes a violation of both Article 5 of the Convention and Article 17 thereof. 245. As regards the arguments of the representatives regarding the alleged violation of Article 17 of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victims’ next of kin, the Court considers that the facts alleged in that respect have been considered when examining the violation of the right to privacy of the next of kin in the instant case (supra paras. 230, 234, 235, and 236.) XIV REPARATIONS APLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE CONVENTION OBLIGATION TO REPAIR 246. The Court has pointed out on several occasions that it is a principle of International Law that any breach of an international obligation that causes damage, generates an obligation to provide an adequate reparation of such damage185. To such effect, the Court has based its considerations on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which states the following: 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. 247. As the Court has pointed out, Article 63(1) of the American Convention embodies an accepted tenet which constitutes one of the fundamental principles of modern international law regarding the responsibility of the States. Thus, when an illegal act attributable to a State occurs, the international responsibility of such State arises for the violation of an international norm, with the subsequent duty to repair and to cease the consequences of such violation.186 248. The reparation of the damage caused for the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, the full restitution (restitutio in integrum) which consists of the reinstatement of the situation prior to the violation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, this International Court must order the adoption of a series of measures that, apart from providing protection to the rights that have been violated, may remedy the consequences of such violations, and further order the payment of compensation for the damages that have been caused.187 It is also 185 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 242; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 10, para. 114; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 61. 186 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 243; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 10, para. 114; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 62. 187 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 244; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 10, para. 115; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 63.