119. In addition, in their final written arguments, the representatives argued that the rights of the child enshrined in Article 19 of the Convention had been violated. Although this argument was made late, in application of the principle of iura novit curia, the Court will analyze it. 120. According to the representatives, at the time of Mr. Tabares Toro’s disappearance, his sisters Leidy Julieth and María Isabel Gallego Toro were 13 and 10 years old respectively, and this event affected their childhood, as they spent long periods of time without a mother's presence and grew up in an environment of distrust toward the outside world. According to testimonies, this caused them to be deeply fearful of living a basically normal life. They were stigmatized by hostile comments. The representatives added that the two girls’ experiences were the result of the actions of the government officials who disappeared their brother and that despite knowing the facts, the authorities never took concrete steps to help the girls. 121. In light of the above, and in consideration of the State's acknowledgment of responsibility (supra para. 27(c)), the Court finds that the State violated the rights to personal integrity, the protection of honor and dignity, and the protection of the family enshrined in Articles 5(1), 11, and 17 of the American Convention respectively, in conjunction with its Article 1(1), against María Elena Toro Torres, Óscar de Jesús Tabares, Holmar de Jesús Gallego Márquez, María Bibiancy Tabares Toro, Jhon Fredy Tabares Giraldo, Leidy Julieth Gallego Toro, and María Isabel Gallego Toro. 122. The Court further concludes that the State violated the rights of the child enshrined in Article 19 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1), against Leidy Julieth Gallego Toro and María Isabel Gallego Toro, who were children at the time of the events. VIII REPARATIONS 157 123. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to remedy it adequately, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 158 124. Remedying the harm produced by the infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring the prior situation. When this is not feasible, as in the majority of cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights and to remedy the consequences of those violations.159 Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to grant various measures of reparation in order to redress the harm comprehensively; thus—in addition to pecuniary compensation—measures of restitution, rehabilitation, and satisfaction, as well as guarantees of non-repetition, are especially important to redress the harm caused. 160 125. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proven, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Accordingly, the Court must analyze all of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law. 161 126. Bearing in mind the violations of the American Convention declared in the previous chapters, and in light of the standards established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 130. 159 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 2, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 131. 160 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, supra, para. 226, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 131. 161 Cf. Case of of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 110, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 132. 157 158 29