89 141. 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 immediately to its international responsibility, with the consequent obligation to cause the consequences of the violation to cease and to repair the damage caused.89 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.90 142. 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.91 It is also necessary to add the measures of a positive nature that the State must adopt to ensure the non-repetition of harmful acts such as those that occurred in this case.92 143. 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 declared in the judgment.93 144. In light of these criteria and the circumstances of the instant case, the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and by the representatives regarding reparations, so as to order measures designed to repair the damage in this case. A) BENEFICIARIES 145. The Court will proceed to determine who should be considered an “injured party” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention and, consequently, merit the reparations established by the Court. In the first place, the Court finds that Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, and Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba, are the “injured party,” as victims of the violations established 89 Cf.. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 209; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 346, and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 6, para. 175. 90 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 3, para. 117; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 209, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 347. 91 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 3, para. 117; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 209, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 347. 92 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 6, para. 176; Case of López Álvarez, supra note 6, para. 182; Blanco Romero et al. case. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 69; and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 69, para. 248. 93 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 3, para. 118; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 210, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 348.