8 19. Amici curiae pleadings were submitted by the Central American Association of Relatives of the Detained-Disappeared (Asociación Centroamericana de Familiares de DetenidosDesaparecidos) and the following twelve jurists: Jean-Denis Archambault, Alejandro Artucio, Alfredo Etcheberry, Gustavo Gallón Giraldo, Diego García Sayán, Alejandro M. Garro, Robert K. Goldman, Jorge Mera, Denis Racicot, Joaquín Ruiz Giménez, Arturo Valencia Zea and Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni. III 20. The first question the Court must resolve is related to the implementation of resolutory point number 6 of the judgment on the merits, according to which it gave Honduras and the Commission six months from the date of the judgment of July 29, 1988, to reach an agreement on the form and amount of just compensation to be paid to the family of Manfredo Velásquez (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra 2). 21. In its pleading of March 1, 1989, the Commission reported on its attempts to reach an agreement with the Government. According to the Commission, only at the end of the six-month period was it possible to meet in the city of Tegucigalpa with a commission named by the President of the Republic of Honduras "to negotiate and determine the amount and form of payment of the compensation awarded in the Inter-American Court's judgment of July 29, 1988." 22. According to the record of that meeting (supra 5), the parties agreed only on the recognition of the beneficiaries of the compensation. The remaining points are simple declarations which establish no criteria for fixing the amount of the compensation and, even less, for payment. Therefore, resolutory point number 6 of the judgment on the merits of July 29, 1988, was not carried out. IV 23. The written and oral arguments made to the Court show substantial differences of opinion insofar as the scope, bases and amount of the compensation. Some arguments refer to the need to rely upon the internal law of Honduras, or part of it, in determining or paying the indemnity. 24. Because of those disagreements and in order to implement the judgment on the merits of July 29, 1988, the Court must now define the scope and content of the just compensation to be paid by the Government to the family of Manfredo Velásquez. 25. It is a principle of international law, which jurisprudence has considered "even a general concept of law," that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation. Compensation, on the other hand, is the most usual way of doing so (Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21 and Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 29; Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184). 26. Reparation of harm brought about by the violation of an international obligation consists in full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which includes the restoration of the prior situation, the reparation of the consequences of the violation, and indemnification for patrimonial and nonpatrimonial damages, including emotional harm.