protection of the law against such […] attacks.” In general, the right honor relates to self-esteem and self-worth.314 220. In previous cases, the Court has established that the care accorded to a person’s mortal remains is a form of respecting the right to human dignity. It has also indicated that a person’s mortal remains deserve being treated with respect in front of their grieving family members, because of the significance those remains have for them.315 The Court considers that funeral rites are acts by which the deceased’s next of kin pay homage to their loved one in accordance with their beliefs, trying to obtain some small comfort in the final moments they will have in the physical presence of that person. In this case, the agents of the Public Prosecution Service came to the funeral home where a wake was being held for Claudina Velásquez and asked to take her fingerprints, threatening her parents with accusing them of obstruction of justice, even though this procedure should have been carried out before the body was returned to the family. Thus, they burst in on an intimate and painful moment in order to again handle the mortal remains of the daughter of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán and Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal, and sister of Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz, violating the right to respect for their honor and recognition of their dignity. Consequently, the State also violated Article 11 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of these members of Claudina Velásquez Paiz’s family. VIII REPARATIONS 221. Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention,316 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make appropriate redress, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.317 222. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restoration of the previous situation (restitutio in integrum). If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of such violations.318 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to provide full compensation for the harm, so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused. 319 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 57, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 124. 315 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 81. In this regard, see also mutatis mutandis, Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 115. 316 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes que: “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.” 317 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 286. 318 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 287. 319 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 287. 314 75