77 when an illicit fact occurs that is attributable to a State, there immediately arises an international responsibility of that State due to the violation of an international rule, with the consequent duty to redress and to make cease the consequences of the violation.182 77. Reparation of the damage caused by violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which involves the reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, the international court must order a set of measures to, in addition to ensuring the rights infringed, redress the consequences of the breaches, as well as to decide on payment of indemnification as compensation for the damage caused.183 This obligation to make reparations is regulated, in all its aspects (scope, nature, modes, and determination of beneficiaries) by international law, and cannot be modified by the respondent State nor can it fail to comply with it, invoking to this end provisions of its domestic law.184 78. As their name indicates, reparations are measures that tend to eliminate the effects of violations that were committed. Their nature and amount depend on the damage caused at both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary level. Reparations cannot involve enrichment nor impoverishment of the victim or his heirs.185 In this regard, reparations established in this Judgment must be consistent with the violations found in the judgment on the merits. VIII REPARATIONS 79. In operative paragraph four of the November 11, 1999 judgment on the merits, the Court decided to open the reparations and legal costs stage in the instant case. In this judgment the Court will establish, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, with the probatory elements gathered during the various stages of the proceedings and in light of criteria set forth in its case law, the reparations that must be made by the Venezuelan State. A) Pecuniary Damage Arguments of the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin 80. As regards compensation for pecuniary damage, the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin argued as follows: 182 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 2, para. 202; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 60; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 38. 183 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 2, para. 203; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 61; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 39. 184 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 2, para. 203; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 61; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 39. 185 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 2, para. 205; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 63; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 41.