instant case to be truly effective, the State should have adopted the necessary measures to ensure compliance.334 276. Lastly, while it is reasonable to consider that the precautionary measure ordered by the First Civil Judge was temporary, until the competent Judge had taken a final decision on the application for amparo, it is not possible to conclude that the obligatory nature of this measure had extinguished because the remedy was inconclusive; particularly, if the ineffectiveness of the amparo was due, as was demonstrated, to the negligence of the judicial authorities themselves. Consequently, the obligation to comply with the precautionary measures ordered by the State’s judicial authority extended throughout the period during which the presumed risk to the rights of the complainants remained. 277. Furthermore, although the judicial authorities did not issue an order or final decision on the admissibility of the application for amparo, they ordered a precautionary measure in order to safeguard the effectiveness of an eventual final decision. Therefore, the State had the obligation to ensure compliance with said decision under the provisions of Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention. 278. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the State did not guarantee an effective remedy to redress the juridical situation violated, and did not ensure that the appropriate competent authority ruled on the rights of the persons who filed the remedy, or that the decisions were executed through effective judicial protections, in violation of Articles 8(1), 25(1), 25(2)(a), and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the Sarayaku People. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 335 279. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation,336 and that this provision “reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”337 280. The reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of re-establishing the situation that existed prior to the violation. When this is not possible, as in most cases involving human rights violations, the Court will order measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to make reparation for the consequences of the violations.338 Thus, the Court has considered the need to order diverse measures of reparation in order to redress fully the damage 334 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of Acevedo uendía et al. (“Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 75. 335 Article 63(1) of the American Convention states: “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.” 336 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 145. 337 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 50, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 145. 338 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26 and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 157. 77