29 full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, the Court has written that: [t]his obligation implies the duty of States Parties to organize (…) all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation. 109 97. The constant jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court is that any violation of an international obligation that results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation. 110 Thus, “[t]he occurrence of a wrongful act that is attributable to a State gives rise to the State’s international liability, and its resulting duty to make reparation for and remove the consequences of the violation.” 111 The Court has elaborated upon the obligation to make reparations pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which embodies a customary law norm that is one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on States’ responsibility. 112 98. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. These principles affirm the International obligation that States have to procure reparations for human rights violations, as an essential component of International Human Rights Law; and “do not entail new international or domestic legal obligations but identify mechanisms, modalities, procedures and methods for the implementation of existing legal obligations under international human rights law (…)” 113 . According to these principles: Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is intended to promote justice by redressing gross violations of international human rights law (…). Reparation should be proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered. In accordance with its domestic laws and international legal obligations, a State shall provide reparation to victims for acts or omissions 109 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166 (emphasis added). 110 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; I/A Court H.R., Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 203; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 231. 111 IACHR, Application with the I/A Court H.R. in the Case of Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores (Case 12.449) v. Mexico, June 24, 2009, para. 174, citing the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the follow cases: I/A Court H.R., Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006 Series C No. 162, para. 200; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 414; I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 5 de julio de 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 116. 112 See, for example, I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 255; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 231, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 203. 113 Annex 26. UN, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, General Assembly Resolution 60/147, December 16, 2005, Preamble.