the substantive law to order the death sentence made by the judge a quo, the Court of Appeals limited itself to providing an abstract response, without going into the merits of the grounds raised by the alleged victims. In effect, this Court observes that the Court of Appeals rejected the appellants' allegations on the grounds that the legislation in force did not allow it to carry out any type of review in this regard, without analyzing the individual, specific arguments put forward by the appellants. Consequently, the Court considers that the refusal by the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes to review the factual issues raised by the defense of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Aníbal Archila Pérez constituted an international wrongful act in that it resulted in a breach of the duty of integral review of the judgment established in Article 8(2)(h). 135. On the other hand, since Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention has its own legal content and the principle of effectiveness (effet utile) is transversal to the due protection of all the rights recognized in that instrument, the Court considers it unnecessary to analyze that provision in relation to Article 25(1) of the Convention.181 Likewise, with regard to the allegation of the Commission and the representatives that none of the other remedies filed by Messrs. Rodríguez Revolorio, López Calo, and Aníbal Archila Pérez were effective, the Court notes that in the instant case it will only analyze the special appeal because it is an ordinary remedy, and will not refer to the remedy of amparo or review because these are extraordinary remedies. 136. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to appeal the judgment, provided for in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Aníbal Archila Pérez. IX REPARATIONS 137. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,182 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.183 138. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in reestablishing of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in most cases of human rights violations, this Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of such violations.184 Therefore, the Court has considered it necessary to grant several measures of reparation in order to redress the harm comprehensively; thus, in addition to pecuniary Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 77, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 123. 182 Article 63(1) of the 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 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.” 183 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Coc Max et al (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 143. 184 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Coc Max et al (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 144. 181 39