190. Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’s sister also indicated that the events led to her becoming ill “emotionally and with a nervous condition.” She stated that, as indicated by a doctor, half her face became paralyzed due to the stress.231 The Court also underscores the expert opinion provide by the psychologist, Juan Cristóbal Aldana, who indicated that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’s sister suffered “compassion fatigue,” which occurs as a result of providing high levels of energy and compassion to those who suffer and, on not seeing any improvements in the suffering, this tends to express itself in psycho-social problems.” Regarding the psycho-social effects of the death sentence imposed on her brother, the expert witness indicated that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’s sister suffered from a syndrome of “false hope, within a hopeless situation,” which included “cognitive distortion where, on hearing the death sentence [… the person] becomes emotionally drained.” Regarding the effects of the extrajudicial execution of her brother, the expert witness indicated that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’s sister experienced “vicarious trauma, manifesting a profound traumatism, because she had an inter-personal (emotional-affective), inter-subjective (identification with the suffering) and inter-emotional (high stress levels) relationship with what her brother experienced from the time of his arrest and until his death.” The expert witness concluded that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’s sister suffered from “emotional exhaustion […] that possibly triggered a depression during her life as an elderly person.”232 191. Therefore, based on the evidence and information provided to the case file, the Court considers that, as a direct result of: (i) the torture suffered by her brother on the day of his arrest, August 6, 1997, and the aftereffects; (ii) the imposition of the death penalty; (iii) the subsequent extrajudicial execution, and (iv) the failure of the state authorities to investigate the facts, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’s sister experienced profound suffering and anguish that violated her mental and moral integrity. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to personal integrity established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. IX REPARATIONS 192. Based on the provisions of Article 63() of the American Convention,233 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to repair it adequately, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 234 193. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligations requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of such violations.235 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm comprehensively, so that in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition have special relevance for the harm caused. 236 194. The Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the Cf. Affidavit made by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ sister on February 28, 2019 (evidence file, folio 8479). Cf. Expert opinion provided by Dr. Juan Cristóbal Aldana Alfaro on February 28, 2019 (evidence file, folio 8508). 233 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates 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.” 234 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 59. 235 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacres) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 144, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 60. 236 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 60. 231 232 45