12 46. Article 63(1) of the Convention makes a distinction between the behavior that must be followed by the State responsible for the violation from the moment that the Court passes judgment and the consequences of that same State’s attitude in the past, that is, while the violation was in process. As regards the future, Article 63(1) provides that the injured party shall be ensured the enjoyment of the right or freedom that was violated. As for the past, the provision in question empowers the Court to impose reparations for the consequences of the violation and a fair compensation. In matters involving violations of the right to life, as in the instant case, reparation must of necessity be in the form of pecuniary compensation, given the nature of the right violated (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 189; Godínez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 199). 47. The Commission interprets Article 63(1) of the Convention as instituting the obligation to reestablish the statu quo ante. In another part of its brief, the Commission refers to in integrum restitutio, which it seems to equate to the reestablishment of the statu quo ante. Regardless of the terms employed, the Commission affirms that the compensation to be paid by Suriname shall be in an amount sufficient to remedy all the consequences of the violations that took place. 48. Before analyzing these rules in their legal context, it is important to reflect on human actions in general and how these occur in practice. Every human act produces diverse consequences, some proximate and others remote. An old adage puts it as follows: causa causæ est causa causati. Imagine the effect of a stone cast into a lake; it will cause concentric circles to ripple over the water, moving further and further away and becoming ever more imperceptible. Thus it is that all human actions cause remote and distant effects. To compel the perpetrator of an illicit act to erase all the consequences produced by his action is completely impossible, since that action caused effects that multiplied to a degree that cannot be measured. 49. For a long time, the law has addressed the subject of how human actions occur in practice, what their effects are and what responsibilities they give rise to. On the international plane, the arbitral award in the case of “Alabama” already dealt with this question (Moore, History and Digest of International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party, Washington, D.C., 1898, vol. I, pp. 653-659). The solution provided by law in this regard consists of demanding that the responsible party make reparation for the immediate effects of such unlawful acts, but only to the degree that has been legally recognized. As for the various forms and modalities of effecting such reparation, on the other hand, the rule of in integrum restitutio refers to one way in which the effect of an international unlawful act may be redressed, but it is not the only way in which it must be redressed, for in certain cases such reparation may not be possible, sufficient or appropriate (cf. Factory at Chorzów, merits, supra 43, p. 48). The Court holds that this is the interpretation that must be given to Article 63(1) of the American Convention.