to be considered a true breach.84 In this case, the Court notes that the state did not plead its federal structure as an excuse to fail to comply with its international obligations, and therefore, the Court does not find that the state has failed to comply with its obligations arising from Article 28 of the Convention. B.3 Conclusion 58. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court concludes that the state is responsible for the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, due to a failure by the Supreme Court of Mendoza to provide a comprehensive review of the appeal filed by Mr. Gorigoitía's defense counsel against the conviction of the First Criminal Chamber of Mendoza. Likewise, it concludes that the state is responsible for the violation of Article 2 of the Convention as a result of the cassation appeal regulations set forth in Article 503 of Law 1908 that are contrary to the Convention. Additionally, the Court concludes that the state is not responsible for the violation of Article 25 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, and that it is not responsible for the violation of Article 28 of the Convention. IX REPARATIONS85 59. Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention,86 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on state responsibility. 60. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, insofar as possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration of the previous situation.87 If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to ensure the rights that have been infringed, and to redress the consequences of the resulting harm.88 Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused.89 61. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and also the measures requested to redress the respective damage. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law.90 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 220. 85 Application of Article 63(1) of the Convention. 86 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 90. 87 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 91. 88 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 91. 89 Cf. Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 91. 90 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 Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 92. 84 19