52 prosecution of the alleged perpetrators of human right violations, including the investigation carried out by the Office of the Attorney General for the acts committed in the instant case.” Considerations of the Court 173. In view of the acknowledgment of liability made by the State (supra para. 20), and based on the consideration of the merits contained in previous chapters, the Court stated that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Personal Integrity) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the Convention, regarding Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García (supra para. 46, 105 and 126). Moreover, the State violated the rights embodied in Articles 5(1) (Right to Personal Integrity), 8(1) (Right to Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of said treaty, to the detriment of Guadalupe Yllaconza-Ramírez de Baldeón (wife of the victim); Crispín, Fidela, Roberto, Segundina, Miguelita, Perseveranda, Vicente and Sabina, all of them named Baldeón-Yllaconza (children of the victim) (supra paras. 47, 130 and 169). Moreover, the Tribunal considered that the State failed to comply with Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, regarding the obligation to investigate and punish torture in domestic courts after April 28, 1991. 174. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of international obligations which causes damage purports the duty to make adequate reparations.97 In its decisions on that matter, the Court took into consideration the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which sets forth: 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 party harmed 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 party harmed. 175. Section 63(1) of the American Convention codifies a rule of custom which is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law regarding the responsibility of States. Upon the occurrence of an internationally wrongful act attributable to a State, the international liability of such State arises, with the consequent duty to make reparations and to have the consequences of the violation remedied.98 The obligation to make reparations is governed by International Law and must not be modified or unfulfilled by the State by resorting to its domestic laws.99 176. The reparation of the damage caused by the infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in returning to the state of affairs prior to the infringement. If this is not feasible, as it happens in most cases –the instant case among others,- the Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 294; Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 6, para. 179; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 226. 97 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 295; Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 6, para. 180; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 227. 98 99 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 296; Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 6, para. 180; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 228.