and nobody has been punished. Moreover, the Court notes that the State has not refuted the arguments on the violation of the right to personal integrity with respect to any of the persons indicated as victims in this case.224 190. The Court, therefore, concludes that the State is responsible for violating the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Flora Potasnik, Mónica Raquel Wodzislawski, Marta Odizzio de Raggio, Horacio Enrique Raggio Odizzio, Daniel Raggio Odizzio, Arturo Ricardo Reyes Gaetán, Celia Natividad Sedarri Aparicio, Estela Reyes Sedarri, Washington Javier Barrios Fernández, Washington Barrios, Hilda María Fernández Rodríguez, Jaqueline Barrios Fernández, Amalia González de González, Elena Zaffaroni Rocco, Disnarda Ema Flores Soler de Tassino, Karina Teresa Tassino, Javier Tassino and Álvaro Luis Tassino. VIII REPARATIONS 191. On the basis of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.225 192. Reparation for the damage caused by the infringement of an international obligation requires, to the extent possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration of the prior situation. If this is not possible, as occurs in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine the measures to guarantee the infringed rights and to repair the consequences of the violation.226 The Court has, therefore, considered the need to provide different types of reparation in order to fully redress the damages and, thus, in addition to pecuniary measures, other measures such as satisfaction, restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance due to the damage caused.227 193. Reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven harm, as well as with the measures requested to repair the resulting damages. The Court, therefore, must observe such coincidence in order to adjudge and declare according to the law.228 The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 41(3) of its Rules, it “may consider those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly controverted as accepted.” 224 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25 and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, para. 173. 225 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 24 and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, para. 174. 226 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226 and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, para. 174. 227 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110 and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, para. 175. 228 51