24 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.45 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.46 150. 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.47 55. First, the Court emphasizes that Chapter V of its Rules of Procedure allows the early conclusion of a proceeding, due either to a stay in the proceeding or a friendly settlement.48 This early conclusion of the proceeding before the Court arises from the initiative of the parties, not of the Court, and has occurred in numerous cases.49 In the case sub judice, and as can be seen from the case files before the 45 Cf. Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 38; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 77; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 20, para. 203. 46 Cf. Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 38; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 77; Hilaire, Constantin and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 20, para. 203. See also, Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 72; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 149; Cantos case, supra note 15, para. 68; Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 38; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 77; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 20, para. 203; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 61; Bámaca Velásquez case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 39; Cantoral Benavides case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 41; Cesti Hurtado case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 34; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 13, para. 61; the “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 15, para. 77; Blake case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, para. 32; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 25, para. 42; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 42; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 31, para. 16; Neira Alegría et al. case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 37; El Amparo case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 15; Aloeboetoe et al. case, Reparations, supra note 18, para. 44; Godínez Cruz case. Compensatory damages (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 8, para. 28; and Velásquez Rodríguez case. Compensatory damages (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 30. 47 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. 48 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13; Barrios Altos case. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75; Trujillo Oroza case, supra note 15; El Caracazo case. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58; Benavides Cevallos case. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38; Garrido and Baigorria case. Judgment of February 2, 1996. Series C No. 26; El Amparo case. Judgment of January 18, 1995. Series C No. 19; Maqueda case. Order of January 17, 1995. Series C No. 18; and Aloeboetoe et al. case. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11. 49 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, paras. 25, 27, 31 to 33; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 51; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 5; Barrios Altos case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, para. 3; Barrios Altos case, supra note 48, paras. 34 and 35; Trujillo Oroza case, supra note 15, paras. 36 and 37; El Caracazo case, supra note 48, paras. 37 and 39; Garrido and Baigorria case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, paras. 16 and 17; Benavides Cevallos case, supra note 48, paras. 35 and 36; Garrido and Baigorria case,