77 Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Albertina VianaLopes, Irene Ximenes-Lopes-Miranda, Francisco Leopoldino Lopes and Cosme Ximenes-Lopes; and the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said Convention, to the detriment of Albertina Viana-Lopes and Irene Ximenes-Lopes-Miranda. The Court has held, on several occasions, that any violation of an international obligation resulting in harm carries with it an obligation to provide adequate reparations.144 To that end, Article 63(1) of the American Convention provides 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] party harmed 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 party harmed. 208. As pointed out by the Court, Article 63(1) of the American Convention enshrines a customary rule that is at the basis of contemporary International Law concerning the liability of States. Thus, upon the occurrence of an internationally wrongful act attributable to a State, the international liability of such State arises, with the consequent duty to make reparations and to have the consequences of the violation remedied.145 Such international liability is of a different kind than that in the domestic law.146 209. The reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation involves, whenever possible, full compensation ( restitutio in integrum), which consists of the restoration to the original condition existing prior to the violation. If this is not feasible, the international court shall determine the measures to be ordered to protect the rights that were affected, as well as to make reparations for the consequences of the infringements and shall determine a compensation for the damage caused147 or other kind of relief. The obligation to provide reparations, which is governed in every aspect (i.e., scope, nature, form and determination of the beneficiaries) by international Law, must not be altered or breached by the respondent on the basis of its domestic law.148 210. Reparations, as the term suggests, are those measures necessary to eliminate the effects of the violations committed. The nature and amount of the reparations depend on the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused. 144 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 174; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4, para. 195; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al, supra note 4, para. 294. 145 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 175; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4 para. 196; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 4, para. 295. 146 Cf. Case of Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, para. 211; Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 138, para. 56; Case of Gómez Paquiyauri Case, supra note 108, para. 73; and Case of Cesti Hurtado. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of January 26, 1999. Series C No. 49, para. 47. 147 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 176; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4 para. 197; and Case of Acevedo- Jaramillo et al., supra note 4, para. 296. 148 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 176; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4 para. 197; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 4, para. 296.