16 require the State to adopt the concrete means in order to stop the acts that impede the use and enjoyment of the rights of Mr. Ivcher Bronstein as majority shareholder of the [company and that, p]articularly, […] request the State to not collect from the [company] the taxes generated during the period [of reference].” 35. That in relation to the judgment issued by the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, the Commission pointed out that the Court “must remind the […] State of the obligation to repair, which governs in all the aspects of international law […], and cannot be modified or breached by the obligated State invoking regulations of its internal law.” 36. That the Court remembers what it stipulated in paragraph 178 of the Judgment, in the sense that the reparation of harm occasioned by the infraction of an International obligation requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), that consists of (1) the reestablishment of the previous situation, and (2) the reparation of the consequences that the infraction produced, as well as (3) the payment of indemnity as compensation for the harms occasioned. Therefore, in the Judgment, the Tribunal declared that the harm occasioned for the violation of the rights of Mr. Ivcher as majority shareholder of the CLRS demands a reparation from the State that implies, according to that provided in the Decision, to facilitate the condition so that he recuperates the use and enjoyment of said rights, like her was until the moment prior to the violated referred to, in the terms of the internal legislation and before the competent national authorities (supra Having Seen 1). Also, said reparation demands, according to the Judgment, the relative compensation for the dividends and the other payments that were corresponded to him as a majority shareholder and employee of said company (supra Having Seen 1). Therefore, it corresponds to the Tribunal to analyze the fulfillment of these two aspects of the means of reparation ordered in the Eighth Operative Paragraph of the Judgment. 37. That to analyze first that which relates to the compensation for the loss of dividends and other payments that correspond to Mr. Ivcher, the Tribunal observed that, directed toward the fulfillment of the Judgment of the Inter-American Court and in application of the Peruvian legislation that governs the processing of execution of judgments issued by supranational tribunals, Mr. Ivcher brought an arbitral petition against the State. On July 4, 2005, the Arbitral Tribunal determined that the State must pay to Mr. Ivcher an indemnity for the damages caused (supra Considering 22). Therefore, in fulfillment of the resolution of the Arbitral Tribunal, on December 22, 2005, the State paid to Mr. Ivcher a sum of money corresponding to the dividends and fees left unpaid, as well as for the loss of the value of the company. As a consequence, this Court declared the fulfillment of that ordered in the Eighth Operative Paragraph of the Judgment, regarding the “compensation related to the dividends and the other payments that were corresponded [to Mr. Ivcher Bronstein] as a majority shareholder and employee” of the company CLRSA. 38. That as pointed out previously, in addition to the granting of an indemnity as compensation for the harms caused, the restitutio in integrum demands also the reestablishment of the situation prior to the violation. In this sense, the relation of the recuperation of the “use and enjoyment of his rights as majority shareholders of the [CLRS], as he was until August 1, 1997,” the Tribunal valuates that the State, through the order of March 30, 2001, of the Specialized Court of Public Law of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (supra Considering 21), had declared null the judicial resolutions that illegally granted the administration of CLRSA to the minority shareholders, that also had declared null all the acts made by said shareholders to the protection of such orders