109 Considerations of the Court 232. Based on the statements in the chapters above, the Court has found that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 7, 8(1), 8(2), 8.(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(f), 8(2)(g), 8(5), 13 and 25 of the Convention, all of them in conjunction with Articles 2 and 1(1) thereof, and Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Humberto Antonio PalamaraIribarne. In its case law, the Court has established that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.224 The Court has based such statement on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, under which: [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 party harmed. Therefore, the Court will now analyze the measures required to be taken in order to repair the damage caused to Mr. Humberto Antonio Palamara-Iribarne as a result of the aforementioned violations of the Convention. 233. Article 63(1) of the American Convention reflects a rule of customary law that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on the responsibility of States. Upon the occurrence of an internationally wrongful act attributable to a State, the international liability of such State arises immediately, with the consequent duty to make reparations and to have the consequences of the violation remedied.225 234. The reparation of the damage caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring the previous status quo. Should this, as in the instant case, not be feasible, the international court is to determine the measures to be ordered to guarantee the exercise of the impaired rights, as well as to make reparations for the consequences of the violations, ordering compensation for the damage caused.226 The responsible State may not rely on domestic law provisions 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.227 224 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” supra note 1, para. 242; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 114, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 61. 225 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” supra note 1, para. 243; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 114, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 62. 226 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” supra note 1, para. 244; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 115, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 63. 227 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” supra note 1, para. 244; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 115, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 63.