the victims of certain human rights violations, applying a presumption iuris tantum in the case of mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, husbands and wives, and permanent companions, provided this responds to the particular circumstances of the case. In the case of the direct family members, it is for the State to disprove this presumption. 164 In addition, this presumption is also applicable to the victims’ siblings, unless the contrary is established by the specific circumstances of the case.165 137. Consequently, this Court considers that, as a direct result of the arbitrary deprivation of the life of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez, the members of their family have suffered pain and anguish to the detriment of their mental and moral integrity. Furthermore, the Court has already referred in the chapter on judicial guarantees to the acts of harassment and threats against the family members of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez during the judicial investigations into the facts of this case (supra Chapter VII.2.B.3). 138. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the family members of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez.166 VIII. REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 139. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,167 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.168 The Court has found it necessary to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm comprehensively, so that in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, together with guarantees of nonrepetition, have special relevance for the harm caused. 169 Similarly, the reparations must Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 119, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, para. 320. 164 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 253, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, para. 320. 165 They are: (1) Juana Emilia Loreto Pérez, wife and mother; (2) Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto, brother and son; (3) Dinorah María Díaz Loreto, sister and daughter; (4) Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto, brother and son; (5) Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto, brother and son; (6) Octavio Antonio Díaz Loreto, brother and son; (7) Alexandra Teresa Gualdrón Pernía, sister-in-law and daughter-in-law; (8) Arianna Leaneth Díaz Doubain, daughter of David Octavio Díaz Loreto; (9) José Ocopio, brother-in-law and son-in-law; (10) Luz Marina Ledesma de Díaz (sister-in-law and daughter-inlaw), and (11) José Rafael Ocopio, nephew and grandson. 166 Article 63(1) of the Convention 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.” 167 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of Ruíz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala, para. 192. 168 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Ruíz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala, para. 193 169 -40-