appointment of the new judges amounted to an arbitrary and unequal treatment of the judges who were dismissed and not reelected. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that that the re-appointment of some of the judges was due to political motives or affinity with the Government. 233 198. In consideration of the foregoing, this Court considers that Article 24 of the Convention was not violated in this case. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 199. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 234 the Court has held that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage creates a duty to make adequate reparation 235 and that this provision, based on a general concept of law, constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on State responsibility. 236 200. Reparation of the damage caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, wherever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which implies restoring the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases involving human rights violations, the Court will decide on measures to guarantee the infringed rights and to repair the consequences of the violations. 237 Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to grant various measures of reparation, so as to provide full redress for the damage caused; therefore, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are of special relevance given the damage caused. 238 201. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damages verified and the measures requested to repair the respective damages. Therefore, the Court shall adhere to that concurrence in order to rule appropriately and according to law. 239 202. In accordance with the foregoing considerations on the merits and the violations of the American Convention declared in the previous chapter, the Court shall proceed to analyze the arguments and recommendations presented by the Commission, the claims of 233 Similarly see Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, para. 200, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 122. 234 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[i]f 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.” 235 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 161. 236 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 25, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 161. 237 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 26, and Case Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 307. 238 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, para. 25, and Case Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 307. 239 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 306. 58