66 human rights violations. If this were not the case, the rights found in the American Convention would be deprived of effective protection. This conclusion is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Convention, as well as general principles of international law. Figuring prominently among said principles, pacta sunt servanda requires that a treaty’s provisions be given meaningful effect within a State Parties’ internal legal framework.93 XIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) Obligation to provide adequate reparations 168. In accordance with the assessment on the merits set forth in previous chapters, the Court declared, based on the facts of the case, violations of Articles 5, 22, 21, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) of said instrument. The Court has held, on a number of occasions, that any violation of an international obligation resulting in harm carries with it an obligation to provide adequate reparations.94 Article 63(1) of the American Convention states 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 (emphasis added). 169. This provision constitutes a rule of customary law that enshrines one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on state responsibility. Thus, when an illicit act is imputed to the State, there immediately arises a responsibility on the part of that State for the breach of the international norm involved, together with the subsequent duty to make reparations and put an end to the consequences of said violation.95 170. The reparation of harm caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring the situation that existed before the violation occurred. When this is not possible, as in the present case, it is the task of this Tribunal to order the adoption of a series of measures that, in addition to guaranteeing respect for the rights violated, will ensure that the damage resulting from the infractions is repaired, by way, inter alia, of payment of an indemnity as compensation for the harm caused.96 The obligation to provide reparations, which is regulated in all its aspects (scope, nature, 93 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 59, para. 152; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 79, para. 118. 94 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 133; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10, para. 230; and Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 82, para. 85. 95 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 134; Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 82, para 86; and Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations , supra note 82, para. 52. 96 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 135; Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 82, para 87; and Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 82 para. 53.