73 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. 209. This precept reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. When an unlawful act occurs, which can be attributed to a State, this gives rise immediately to its international responsibility for violating the international norm, with the consequent obligation to cause the consequences of the violation to cease and to repair the damage caused.114 210. Whenever possible, reparation of the damage caused requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in the instant case, the international court must determine measures to ensure the damaged rights, repair the consequences of the violations and avoid new violations, and also establish compensation for the damage caused. The responsible State may not invoke provisions of domestic law to modify or fail to comply with its obligation to provide reparation, all aspects of which (scope, nature, methods and determination of the beneficiaries) are regulated by international law.115 211. The purpose of reparations is to eliminate the effects of the violations that have been committed. Their nature and amount depend on the characteristics of the violations committed, the legally-protected interest affected and both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that as been caused. Reparations should not make the victims or their successors either richer or poorer.116 212. In accordance with the probative elements amassed during the proceeding and in light of the above criteria, the Court will examine the claims of the parties with regard to reparations and order the measures it deems pertinent. A) BENEFICIARIES Arguments of the Commission 213. The Commission argued that, owing to the nature of this case and without detriment to what the representatives of the alleged victims would determine at the opportune moment, the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court are: Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico, and their mothers, Leonidas Yean and Tiramen Bosico Cofi. Arguments of the representatives 214. The representatives stated that the Dominican Republic should make 114 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 13, para. 146; Case of Yatama, supra note 13, para. 231, and Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra note 16, para. 180. 115 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 13, para. 147; Case of Yatama, supra note 13, para. 232, and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 13, para. 123. 116 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón case, supra note 13, para. 148; Case of Yatama case, supra note 13, para. 233, and Case of Fermín Ramírez case, supra note 13, para. 124.