impair or diminish an effective defense of their own interests.428 269. The Court has referred to the highly vulnerable situation of Sebastián Furlan, as a minor with a disability, living in a family with limited financial resources, for which reason the State was required to adopt all adequate and necessary measures to address such a situation. Indeed, it has been mentioned that the State has a duty to ensure the promptness in the civil proceedings, on which greater opportunities for rehabilitation depended. The Court has also concluded that it was necessary to ensure the intervention of the Juvenile Defender’s Office or to seek a differentiated application of the law governing the manner in which the judgment is enforced, since these measures would have made it possible to remedy, to some extent, the disadvantageous situation in which Sebastián Furlan found himself. These elements show that that there existed de facto discrimination associated with the violations of the right to a fair trial, judicial protection and right to property already declared. Also, bearing in mind the facts outlined in the chapter on the legal effects caused to Sebastián Furlan in the context of the civil trial (supra paras. 197 to 203), as well as the impact that denying him access to justice had on his possibility of obtaining adequate rehabilitation and health care (supra paras. 197 a 203), the Court considers that the violation of the right to personal integrity has, in turn, been proven. Therefore the Court declares that the State failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee, without discrimination, the right to access to justice under the terms of Articles 8(1), 19, 21, 25(1) and 25 (2.c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Sebastián Furlan. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 270. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 429 the Court has stated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation 430 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.431 271. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in re428 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 119; Advisory Opinion Consultiva OC-18/03, para. 121, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 152. 429 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates 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 the 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.” 430 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 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 279. 431 Cf. 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, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 279. 85