12 37. That Gladys Benavides López and Luis Fernando, Isaac Alonso and José Antonio Cantoral Benavides are beneficiaries is not in dispute. Mrs. Benavides López must be regarded as a beneficiary inasmuch as she is the victim’s mother. The jurisprudence constante of this Court25 has been that a victim’s parent suffering can be presumed and must be compensated. Luis Fernando, Isaac Alonso and José Antonio Cantoral Benavides are Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides’ brothers and as such were not indifferent to his sufferings.26 38. The Court also notes that in the instant case, there is proof that the events that befell Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides caused his mother and his three brothers damages of various kinds and to varying degrees of intensity, thus making them titulaires of the right to compensation. VII OBLIGATION TO MAKE REPARATION 39. In operative paragraph 13 of its August 18, 2000 judgment on the merits, the Court decided that the State must make reparation for the injury caused by the violations of the Convention in the instant case. In this Judgment, the Court will determine what reparation the Peruvian State must make pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 40. The Court has held that Article 63(1) of the American Convention embodies a rule of customary law that is one of the basic principles of contemporary international law as regards the responsibility of States. When an unlawful act imputable to a State occurs, that State immediately becomes responsible in law for violation of an international norm, which carries with it the obligation to make reparation and to put an end to the consequences of the violation.27 41. Reparation for damages caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which is to reinstate the situation that existed prior to the commission of the violation. If, as in the instant case, full restitution is not possible, an international court must order a series of measures that will safeguard the violated rights, redress the consequences that the violations engendered, and order payment of compensation for the damages caused.28 This obligation to make reparation is governed by international law in all its aspects (scope, nature, modalities, and determination of beneficiaries), none of which the respondent State may alter or decline to perform by relying on the provisions of its own domestic laws.29 25 Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 66; The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 108; and Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, paragraph 88. 26 Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 68; and The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 110. 27 Cf. Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 35; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 62; and The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 78. 28 Cf. Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 33; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 60; and The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 76.