27 75. In its consistent jurisprudence, this Court has reiterated that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produce damage entails the obligation to make adequate reparation19. 76. Reparation of the damage resulting from the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, the full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, the international court must determine a series of measures, which, in addition to guaranteeing the rights that have been violated, make reparation for the consequences of the violations, and also must also order the payment of an indemnity as compensation for the damages caused20. 77. The State may not invoke provisions of domestic law in order to modify or fail to comply with the obligation to make reparation – all aspects of which (scope, nature, forms and determination of the beneficiaries) are regulated by international law21. 78. As the Court has indicated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention codifies a rule of common law that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility22. When an unlawful act occurs that may be attributed to a State, the international responsibility of the latter is immediately engaged for the violation of an international law, with the resulting obligation to make reparation and to ensure that the consequences of the violation cease. 79. As the word indicates, reparations consist in the measures that are intended to eliminate the effects of the violations that were committed. Their nature and 19 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 2, para. 177; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 2, para. 201; The Constitutional Court case, supra note 2, para. 118; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 84; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 31, para. 15; Neira Alegría et al. case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 36; El Amparo case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 14; and Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 43. Likewise, Cf. Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21; Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 29; and Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184. 20 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 2, para. 178; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 2, para. 202; The Constitutional Court case, supra note 2, para. 119; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 41; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 48; and Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 85. 21 Cf. Blake case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, para 32; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 42; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 49; Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 86; Caballero Delgado and Santana case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 16; Neira Alegría et al. case. Reparations, supra note 19, para. 37; El Amparo case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 15; and Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations, supra note 19, para. 44. 22 Cf. Blake case, Reparations, supra note 21, para. 33; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 40; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 50; Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 84; Garrido and Baigorria case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 40; Caballero Delgado and Santana case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 15; Neira Alegría et al. case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 36; and Aloeboetoe et al. case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 43; and Cf. Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment, supra note 19; and Factory at Chorzów, Merits, supra note 19; and Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, supra note 19.