60 OBLIGATION TO REPAIR 122. This Court has held that it is a principle of International Law that any violation of an obligation of this nature attributable to a State carries with it an obligation to adequately repair the damage caused and to put an end to the consequences of said According to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which violation.102 constitutes a rule of customary law that enshrines one of the fundamental principles on contemporary international law on state responsibility, [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. 123. The reparation of the damage caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoring the situation that existed before the violation occurred. When this is not possible, as in the majority of the cases, among them the present one, it is the task of the Tribunal to order the adoption of a series of measures that, besides guaranteeing respect for the rights violated, will ensure that the damage resulting from the infractions is repaired, as well as establish payment of an indemnity as compensation for the harm caused.103 It is necessary to add measures of a positive nature that the State must adopt in order to ensure that detrimental acts like those of the present case do not occur again.104 The obligation to repair, which is regulated in all its aspects by international law, cannot be altered or eluded by the State’s invocation of its domestic law.105 124. The nature and amount of the reparations depend on the nature of the violations committed and the harm caused at both pecuniary and non-pecuniary levels. They must be coherent with the violations stated. They cannot entail either enrichment or impoverishment of the victim or his or her family.106 125. Arguments of the Commission In regard to the beneficiaries a) Mr. Fermín Ramírez is the beneficiary of the reparations. In regard to the pecuniary damage 102 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 120; Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para 86; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 3, para. 133. 103 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 122; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 102, para. 88; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 3, para. 134. 104 Cfr. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 3, para. 135; Case of the Cruz Flores, supra note 91, para. 140; and Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 8, para. 260. 105 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 122; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 102, para. 88; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 3, para. 135. 106 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 123; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 102, para. 89; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 3, para. 136.