80 for violation of an international rule, with the attendant duty to redress and to make the consequences of the violation cease.162 149. Redress of the harm 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, as in the instant case, this international Court must order the adoption of a set of measures that, in addition to ensuring respect for the rights abridged, will provide reparation for the consequences caused by the infractions and payment of a compensation for the harm caused in the pertinent case.163 The obligation to redress, which is regulated in all its aspects (scope, nature, modes, and determination of beneficiaries) by international law, cannot be modified by the State nor can it avoid compliance with it by invoking domestic legal provisions.164 150. As regards the violation of the right to life and certain other rights (personal liberty and the right to humane treatment, fair trial and judicial protection), if restitutio in integrum is not possible and given the nature of the right infringed, reparation is carried out, inter alia, according to the practice of international case law, by means of fair pecuniary compensation when this is appropriate, to which it is necessary to add the positive measures that the State must adopt to ensure that injurious acts such as those of the instant case do not recur.165 XIV BENEFICIARIES 151. The Court will now summarize the pleadings of the representatives of the victim and of the Inter-American Commission on who should be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. Pleadings of the representatives of the victim 152. The representatives of the victim argued in their brief with requests, pleadings and evidence (supra 15) that the following persons should be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court: Juan Humberto Sánchez, María Dominga Sánchez (the mother), Juan José Vijil Hernández (the stepfather), Julio Sánchez (brother), Reina Isabel Sánchez (sister), María Milagro Sánchez (sister), Rosa Delia Sánchez (sister), Domitila Vijil Sánchez (sister), María Florinda Vijil Sánchez (sister), Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez (brother), Celio Vijil Sánchez (brother), Donatila Argueta Sánchez (companion), Breidy Maybeli Sánchez (daughter) and Norma Iveth Sánchez (daughter). In the brief with its final pleadings, they did not include Julio Sánchez (brother) and, on the other hand, they included Velvia Lastenia 162 Cf. “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 3, para. 174; Cantos Case, supra note 5, para. 67; Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 37; and El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 76. 163 Cf. Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 38; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 77; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 203. 164 Cf. Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 38; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 77; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 203. 165 Cf. Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 37; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 77; and Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 62.