inhuman or degrading treatment for the close family.”206 As Marina Consuelo García Bravatti de Villagrán confirmed in the expert opinion she presented before this Court, “[t]he pain and suffering caused by the lack of information on the whereabouts of their loved ones prolongs indefinitely the pain, the feeling of insecurity, and the anguish caused by the loss of a loved one.”207 In this regard, Ms. Villagrán noted that, in this case, there was an intergenerational transmission of the psychosocial effects, especially from parents to children, and the second generation of descendants of the surviving victims has also been affected.208 Added to this, is the fact that 39 years have passed since the massacre was perpetrated and the events remain in total impunity, 209 an impunity that constitutes revictimization.210 123. In sum, in this case, it should be presumed that the personal integrity of the direct family members of those who were disappeared on April 28 and 29, 1982, and also of those executed was violated. The Court has no evidence to disprove this presumption. These family members are identified in Annexes VII and VIII of this judgment. 124. Lastly, with regard to the alleged violation of the personal integrity of the surviving victims of the massacre identified in Annex III of this judgment who are not direct family members of those who were disappeared or killed, owing the current situation of impunity in the case, the Court considers that the gravity of the events of the massacre, which affected the entire community of Los Josefinos, and the lack of a judicial response to clarify this – again it should be stressed that the massacre remains in the most absolute impunity 40 years after it was perpetrated – lead to the conclusion that, in this case and in light of its particularities, there has been a violation of the personal integrity of the surviving victims of the massacre due to the severe suffering and psychological harm they have endured, exacerbated by the intergenerational transmission of the psychosocial effects of the gross human rights violations suffered. IX REPARATIONS 125. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation 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.211 126. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoration of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 114, and Case of the Campesino Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 271. 206 Cf. Expert opinion of Marina Consuelo García Bravatti de Villagrán provided by affidavit on February 10, 2021 (evidence file, folio 23950). 207 Cf. Expert opinion of Marina Consuelo García Bravatti de Villagrán provided by affidavit on February 10, 2021 (evidence file, folio 23964). 208 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008, para. 174, and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006, para. 97. 209 Cf. Expert opinion of Marina Consuelo García Bravatti de Villagrán provided by affidavit on February 10, 2021 (evidence file, folio 23960). 210 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 268. 211 39