22 the President to adopt the corresponding procedural measures. The Court will decide these matters in this judgment. 58. Article 63(1) of the American Convention in fine, applies to reparations; it establishes: If 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 (the original is not underlined). 59. 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 produced damage entails the obligation to make adequate reparation15. 60. Reparation of the damage resulting from the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, 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 must also order the payment of an indemnity as compensation for the caused16. 61. The respondent 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 law17. 62. 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 responsibility18. When an unlawful act occurs that may be 15 cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 2, para. 177; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 2, para. 201; The Constitutional Court case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 118; Blake case. Reparations, supra note 13, para. 33; Suárez Rosero case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 40; Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 1, para. 50; Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations, supra note 12, para. 84; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 19, 1996. 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; Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C. No 15, para. 43. See also, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184; Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 29; and Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21. 16 cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 2, para. 178; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 2, para. 202; and The Constitutional Court case, supra note 15, para. 119. 17 cf. Blake case. Reparations, supra note 13, para 32; Suárez Rosero case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 42; and Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 1, para. 49. 18 cf. Blake case. Reparations, supra note 13, para. 33; Suárez Rosero case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 40; Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 1, para. 50. See also, Reparation for