order of November 24, 2000, which entered into force on July 1, 200130, as a broad concept that includes all those persons linked by a close relationship, including offspring, parents and siblings, who may be considered family members and have the right to receive compensation, provided they satisfy the requirements established by this Court’s jurisprudence31. The fact that the Court presumes that a person’s death results in non-pecuniary damages for his parents and siblings should also be recalled32. In the case sub judice, the reparation to the next of kin will be examined in the corresponding sections, in accordance with all the evidence that the parties have provided to this Court. VII OBLIGATION TO REPAIR 58. In the third operative paragraph of the judgment on merits of January 26, 2000, the Court decided to open the reparations and costs stage. The Court will decide the dispute regarding these matters in this judgment. 59. Article 63(1) of the American Convention is applicable with regard to reparations. It 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. 60. As the Court has indicated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention codifies a rule of common law that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. Thus, when an unlawful act occurs that can be attributed to a State, the latter’s international responsibility is immediately engaged for the violation of an international norm, with the resulting obligation to make reparation and to ensure that the consequences of the violation cease33. 61. Reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), whenever possible; this consists in the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, the international court must determine a series of measures which, while guaranteeing the violated rights, repair the consequences of the 30 In accordance with Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Court in the order of November 24, 2000, which entered into force on June 1, 2001, the term “next of kin” refers to the immediate family, that is, the direct ascendants and descendants, siblings, spouses or permanent companions, or those determined by the Court, if applicable. 31 cf. The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 68; The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, para. 86; and Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations (Article 63(1), American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 92. 32 cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 3, paras. 37 and 61 a) and d); The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 66 and 68; and The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, paras. 108, 110, 125, 126, 143, 144 and 158. 33 cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 40; Cesti Hurtado case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 35; and The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 62.