59 Thought and Expression), 16(1) (Freedom of Association), 21(1) and 21(2) (Right to Property), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, and failed to comply with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the victims indicated in paragraph 49(10) of this judgment. 51. Article 63(1) of the American 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. 52. This provision contains a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. When an unlawful act occurs, which can be attributed to a State, this gives rise immediately to its international responsibility for violating the international norm, with the consequent obligation to cause the consequences of the violation to cease and to repair the damage caused.248 53. Whenever possible, reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, the international Court must determine a series of measures to ensure that, in addition to guaranteeing respect for the violated rights, the consequences of the violations are remedied and compensation paid for the damage caused.249 The responsible State may not invoke provisions of domestic law to modify or fail to comply with its obligation to provide reparation, all aspects of which (scope, nature, methods and determination of the beneficiaries) are regulated by international law.250 54. It has to be taken into consideration that, in many cases of human rights violations, such as the instant case, restitutio in integrum is not possible; therefore, bearing mind the nature of the juridical right affected, reparation is made, inter alia, according to international case law, by means of fair indemnity or pecuniary compensation. It is also necessary to add any positive measures the State must adopt to ensure that the harmful acts, such as those that occurred in this case, are not repeated.251 55. In accordance with the evidence gathered during the proceedings and in light of the foregoing criteria, the Court proceeds to consider the claims presented by the Commission and by the representatives concerning reparations, in order to determine, first, who are the beneficiaries of the reparations, and then to establish 248 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 223; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 258, and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 193. 249 Cf. Case of Tibi. supra note 3, para. 224; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 259, and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 194. 250 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 224; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 259, and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 194. 251 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 260; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 195; and. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 189.