120 256. As stated in the preceding chapters, the Court has found that the State is responsible for violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 5(6) of the American Convention, in relation to article 1(1) thereof, and Article 19 when the victims were children, to the detriment of all the inmates at the Center in the period from August 14, 1996 to July 25, 2001 (supra para. 176); violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and in relation to Article 19 when the victims were children, to the detriment of the 12 deceased inmates (supra paragraphs 179, 184 and 186); Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 thereof, to the detriment of the children injured as a result of the fires (supra paragraphs 188 and 190); Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the identified next of kin of the deceased and injured (supra para. 193); Articles 2 and 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 thereof, to the detriment of all the children interned at the Center between August 14, 1996 and July 25, 2001 (supra para. 213); and Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 239 inmates named in the writ of generic habeas corpus (supra para. 251). 257. It is the jurisprudence constante of this Court that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage creates a new obligation, which is to adequately redress the harm done.198 Article 63(1) of the American Convention provides 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. 258. As this Court has previously stated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention reflects a customary rule that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law regarding the responsibility of States. When a harmful act occurs that is imputable to a State, the latter incurs international responsibility for violation of an international rule and thus incurs a duty to make reparation and put an end to the consequences of the violation.199 259. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which is to restore the situation as it was prior to the violation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, the international court must order the adoption of measures to ensure that, in addition to guaranteeing respect for the violated rights, the consequences of the violations are remedied and that compensation is paid for the harm done.200 The responsible State may not invoke provisions of domestic law to modify or fail to comply with its obligation to provide reparation, all aspects of which (scope, nature, 198 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 187; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 219; and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 26, párr 39. 199 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 188; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 220; and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 26, para. 40. 200 Cf. Case of Bulacio, supra note 14, para. 72; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 14, para. 149; and Case of Las Palmeras. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 38.