38. Reparation of the damage caused by violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, complete restitution (restitutio in integrum), which generally consists of reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, the international court must determine the measures required, in addition to ensuring the rights that were infringed, to repair the consequences caused by the breaches, as well as to establish payment of compensation for the damage caused.78 This obligation to provide reparation is regulated, in all its aspects (scope, nature, manner, and determination of beneficiaries) by international law, it cannot be modified by the State nor can it refuse to comply by invoking domestic legal provisions.79 39. Reparations, as their name suggests, are measures that tend to make the effects of violations that were committed disappear. Their nature and amount depend on the damage caused both on a pecuniary and on a non-pecuniary level. Therefore, the reparations determined here are in connection with the violations found in this Court’s December 6, 2001 judgment on the merits. 40. Pursuant to the above, the Court will first determine the reparation due for the death of N.N./Moisés. 41. Secondly, the Court will analyze reparations due for infringements of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. In the instant case, the term “next of kin of the victims” has been constantly used, and it is convenient to clarify its meaning. In these proceedings, the six persons killed by government forces on January 23, 1991 in Las Palmeras are called “victims.” With respect to five of them, the Colombian Courts already ordered compensation due to the victims and it was received by the assignees or their next of kin. With respect to violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, the persons entitled to the rights that were infringed are called “next of kin of the victims” who, in this regard, do not act as assignees, but rather as victims on their own behalf. 42. During this reparations stage, new evidence has been supplied to expand the ambit of infringement of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. The December 6, 2001 judgment on the merits already determined infringement of these provisions and its limits; in the instant Judgment, the Court will limit itself to determining the reparations due for the infringements committed. VIII REPARATIONS FOR LOSS OF LIVE (Article 4 of the American Convention) para. 50 and Garrido and Baigorria Case. Reparations (Art.63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). August 27, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 39, para. 40. 78 Cf. El Caracazo Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 77; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 203; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 61. 79 Cf. El Caracazo Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 77; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 203; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 61.