interference by the State (supra paras. 30 and 31). In fact, the Court of Appeals of San Miguel rejected the appeal filed by Ms. Pavez, considering that “the legislation applicable in the case in question empowered the relevant religious body to grant and revoke the authorization to be issued in accordance with its particular religious, moral and philosophical principles, a situation that depends entirely on each one, with no interference by the State or any private individual, since the power rests with the creed itself, which has broad authority to establish its own rules and principles” (supra para. 30). Likewise, the Supreme Court upheld all parts of the judgment of the Court of Appeals of San Miguel (supra para. 31). The Court of Appeals of San Miguel and subsequently the Supreme Court of Justice declared the appeal inadmissible and rejected it “without it being necessary [...] to analyze and refer in detail to the constitutional guarantees invoked by the appellant.” (supra para. 30). 159. With respect to the foregoing, in Chapter VII.1 the Court noted that the facts of the present case took place in a public educational establishment and that, in this context, activities that affect human rights must be subject to a control of legality. Similarly, it noted that Decree 924 delegates the power to grant certificates of suitability to persons to impart religious education in public schools without there being a clear way to challenge this type of decision. Thus, Article 9 of Decree 924 cannot be interpreted as granting the religious authorities the power to deny the certificate of suitability based on discriminatory criteria, which would be clearly contrary to the Convention. For this reason, the decision by the religious authorities of whether or not to grant the certificate of suitability must be subject to subsequent review by the State authorities, or to appropriate and effective remedies before the jurisdictional authorities, in order to protect and safeguard the rights of individuals against discriminatory acts contrary to the Convention. 160. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, contained in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect rights established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, inasmuch as the domestic judicial authorities did not carry out an adequate control of conventionality regarding the action of the “Cardinal Antonio Samoré” High School, whereby Sandra Pavez Pavez was removed from her position as a Catholic religion teacher, after receiving a communication from the Vicariate for Education of San Bernardo informing her about the revocation of her certificate of suitability. Similarly, in the present case, the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, in relation to the obligations to respect, to guarantee, and to adopt provisions of domestic law, established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, were violated to the detriment of Sandra Pavez Pavez, inasmuch as she lacked suitable and effective remedies to challenge the effects of the decision to revoke her certificate of suitability to teach Catholic religion classes. VII. REPARATIONS 182 161. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 183 162. Reparation for the harm caused by the breach 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 feasible, as occurs in the majority of cases of human rights violations, the Court may order measures to protect the rights that have been violated and repair the harm caused 182 Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 183 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 150. 41