However, the State did not specifically indicate how the victims were repaired for those events. The State only alluded to the fact that, in the decision of October 16, 2008 that acquitted Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López, of the OPP’s charge, the “judge reversed the violation found in the lower court” (supra para. 71). Thus, it cannot be concluded that the State repaired the violations of the right to privacy of Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpil and Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile and that the principle of complementarity should be applied to the events relating to the aforementioned searches. Therefore, the State is responsible for the infringement of the right to privacy, contained in Article 11(2) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation of respect contained in Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile for the searches of the house of their mother and the shop that housed the family business. IX. REPARATIONS 149 196. On the basis of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the 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. 150 197. Reparation for the harm caused by the infringement of an international obligation requires, to the extent possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration of the prior situation. If this is not possible, as occurs in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine the measures to ensure the infringed rights and to redress the consequences of the violations. 151 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to provide different types of reparation that would fully redress the damages in a way that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, other measures such as restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition would have a special relevance for the damage caused. 152 198. The Court has also established that reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven damages and the measures requested for the redress of the resulting damages. The Court will, therefore, analyze such concurrence to rule properly and according to law. 153 199. Therefore, in view of the considerations expressed on the merits and on the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, as well as in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to repair, the Court shall now proceed to analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the observations of the State, in order to order the measures to redress the damage caused. 154 200. The Court reiterates that, during the proceedings before the Commission, the representatives and the State signed a Memorandum of Understanding, which was not endorsed by the Commission 149 Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25 and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 90. 150 151 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 24 and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 91. Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226 and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 91. 152 153 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110 and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 92. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26 and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 93. 154 45