88 to be arbitrarily deprived of it. While this Court deems that, in general, the obligation to respect and guarantee the life of the individuals under its jurisdiction is linked to the responsibility of the State that can derive from its actions or omissions, in the case of the alleged responsibility for the death of those sixteen individuals, this Court does not have sufficient evidence to establish the causes of said deaths. 178. Based on the above, the Court finds that it does not have sufficient evidence to prove the violation of the right to life embodied in Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Griselda Flores, Alcides Morel Chávez, Mauro Fernández, N/N Sosa Chávez, Adolfo Ramírez, Isabel García de Ramírez, Justina Chávez, Ramón Chávez, N/N Morel Chávez, N/N Morel Chávez, Santiago Gómez, María Adela Flores Gómez, Severa Benítez Alvarenga, Ignacio Torales, Silvino Martínez Gómez, and Hilario Gómez, members of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. XI REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) Obligation to provide reparations 179. In accordance with the analysis in the previous chapters, the Court has found, based on the facts of the case, a violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, and of Articles 21, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that same Convention, to the detriment of the members of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. The Court has established, several times, that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide appropriate reparations.209 To this end, Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: [i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by th[e] 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. 180. As the Court has pointed out, Article 63(1) of the American Convention reflects a customary rule that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary International Law regarding the responsibility of States. Thus, when an unlawful act is attributable to a State, this immediately entails the latter’s international responsibility for breaching that international rule, with the attendant duty of reparation and of making the consequences of the violation cease.210 181. Reparation of the damage caused by infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the situation prior to the violation. If this is not possible, the international tribunal must order a number of measures that, in addition to 209 See Case of Caesar, supra note 2, 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 2, para. 133. 210 See Case of Caesar, supra note 2, para. 121; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 209, para. 87, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 134.