62 corresponding to the reparations stage before the Inter-American Court. 173. In its brief of February 5, 2001 (supra para. 51), referring to the State’s position (infra para. 174), the Commission indicated that, since Peru had not fully complied with its recommendations, it was reiterating the claims set out in its briefs for the application and final arguments (supra paras. 1 and 47). The State’s arguments 174. In its brief of February 1, 2001 (supra para. 50), Peru expressed its willingness to reach a friendly settlement and to that end, it will appoint an agent in order to respond to the Commission’s claims. * * * The considerations of the Court 175. Article 63(1) de the American 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. 176. In the instant case, the Court has already established that Peru violated Articles 20(1), 20(3), 8(1), 8(2), 21(1), 21(2), 25(1), 13(1) and 13(3) of the American Convention. 177. This Court has constantly reiterated in its jurisprudence that it is a principle of international law that all violations of an international obligation that produce a damage entail the obligation to repair this adequately108. 178. The reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the previous situation and repairing the consequences of the violation, as well as payment of an indemnity as compensation for the damage caused109. 179. As a consequence of the violations to the rights embodied in the Convention indicated in this case, the Court must rule that the victim be guaranteed the enjoyment of his violated rights and freedoms. The Court observes that, in “Supreme Resolution” No. 254-2000-JUS, of November 15, 2000, the State accepted the recommendations formulated in the Commission’s Report No. 94/98 of December 108 Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 8, para. 118; Suárez Rosero case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 40. See also, Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21; and Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 29; Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184. 109 Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 8, para. 119.