57 of the same international instrument (supra paras. 125, 139, 155, and 156). The Court has established, on several occasions, that all violation of an international obligation that has produced damage involves the duty to adequately repair it.96 To this effect, Article 63(1) of the American Convention states that: [i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [this] 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. 161. As previously stated by the Court, Article 63(1) of the American Convention constitutes a rule of customary law that enshrines one of the fundamental principles in contemporary international law on state responsibility. Thus, when an illicit act is imputed to the State, its international responsibility arises, together with the subsequent duty of reparation and to put an end to the consequences of said violation.97 Said international responsibility is different to the responsibility in domestic legislation.98 162. The reparation of the damage caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring the situation that existed before the violation occurred. When this is not possible, the international court will determine a series of measures to guarantee the rights violated, repair the consequences caused by the infractions, and establish payment of an indemnity as compensation for the harm caused99 or other means of satisfaction. The obligation to repair, regulated in all its aspects (scope, nature, modalities, and determination of the beneficiaries) by International Law, may not be modified or ignored by the State obliged, by invoking stipulations of its domestic law.100 163. Reparations, as indicated by the term itself, consist in those measures necessary to make the effects of the committed violations disappear. Their nature and amount depend on the harm caused at both material and moral levels. Reparations cannot entail either enrichment or impoverishment of the victim or his successors.101 164. Pursuant to the evidentiary elements collected during the process and in the light of the aforementioned criteria, the Court proceeds to analyze the demands 96 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 115; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 207; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 345. 97 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 116; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 208; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 346. 98 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 208; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 365; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 9, para. 211. 99 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 117; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3 para. 209; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 347. 100 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 117; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 209; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 347. 101 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 118; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 210; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 348.