XII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 253. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,242 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to repair this adequately243 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.244 254. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights and to redress the consequences of the violations.245 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation, in order to repair the harm comprehensively, so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance to the harm caused.246 255. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe the said concurrence in order to rule appropriately and according to the law.247 256. Before beginning to determine the measures of reparation, the Court reiterates the value and importance of the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by Colombia, and also recalls that, when ruling on the reparations, it will take into consideration the arguments presented by Colombia when alleging “non-compliance by the Commission with the basic requirements for filing a case before the Court,” in relation to compliance with recommendations 4, 5, and 6 of the Merits Report” (supra paras. 36 and 42). The Court also emphasizes the State’s declaration that it “deeply regrets what happened and that its intention is […] to achieve integral reparation for the victims of this case, respecting the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality, and that similar acts should not be repeated.” 242 Article 63(1) of the 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.” 243 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 279. 244 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 40, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 279. 245 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 280. 246 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 280. 247 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 the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 281. 74