73 C. Conclusion 281. In consideration of the State's partial acknowledgment of its international responsibility, the Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal integrity and protection of the family enshrined in Articles 5 and 17 of the American Convention, in in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Messrs. Omeara Carrascal, Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez, namely: Luis Enrique Omeara Miraval, Aura Isabel Omeara Miraval, Noel Emiro Omeara Miraval, Araminta Omeara Miraval, Ricaurte Omeara Miraval, Eduardo Omeara Miraval, Zoila Rosa Omeara Miraval, Liliana Patricia Omeara Miraval, María Omeara Miraval, Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, Jaime Antonio Omeara Miraval, Elva María Solano de Álvarez, Judith Álvarez Solano, Miguel Ángel Álvarez Solano, Héctor Manuel Álvarez Solano, Clemencia Patricia Álvarez Solano, Juan Carlos Álvarez Solano, Ana Edith Álvarez de García, and Fabiola Álvarez Solano, as well as the violation of the rights of the child enshrined in Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of the then minors, Elba Katherine Omeara Álvarez, Manuel Guillermo Omeara Álvarez and Claudia Marcela Omeara Álvarez. 282. The Court also considers that Colombia is responsible for the violation of the right of movement and residence enshrined in Article 22(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, Fabiola Álvarez Solano and her three children, Elba Katherine Omeara Álvarez, Manuel Guillermo Omeara Álvarez and Claudia Marcela Omeara Álvarez, as well as in relation to the rights of the child, protected in Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of the victims who were children at the time events occurred. 283. In addition, this Court considers that the State is not responsible for the violation of personal integrity enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, due to alleged threats she suffered. 284. Finally, the State is not responsible for the violation of the right to protection of privacy enshrined in Article 11(2) of the treaty, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 285. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention307, the Court holds that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty 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.308 Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, insofar as possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes 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.” 308 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 268. 307