27 beneficiary of the reparations. Therefore, the Tribunal, according to its case-law,72 shall not consider the victim’s next of kin as beneficiaries of reparations. 2. review of the condemnatory judgment 128. The Tribunal pointed out in the preceding paragraphs that Venezuela violated Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention insofar as it prevented Mr. Barreto Leiva from appealing the condemnatory judgment issued against him. The Commission and the representative did not request any other measure than compensation, tending to repair the violation. However, the Court, considering that the reparation of the damage flowing from a breach of an international obligation calls for, if practicable, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring a previouslyexisting situation,73 decides to order the State to offer Mr. Barreto Leiva the possibility of appealing the judgment in question. 129. The Court is aware that Mr. Barreto Leiva complied with the sentence imposed. Nevertheless, the consequences that followed from a conviction are still present and this Tribunal cannot determine that such consequences are the result of a legitimate or illegitimate conviction. That is a duty of the State (supra para. 24) which has not been complied with yet, insofar as the right to appeal the judgment before a higher court is pending. 130. Consequently, if Mr. Barreto Leiva requests so to the State, by means of the Judiciary, he must be granted the right to appeal the decision to fully review the condemnatory judgment. If the court decides that the conviction was according to the Law, such court shall not impose an additional punishment on the victim and it shall reiterate that the victim has already complied with all the convictions imposed in due time (supra para. 22). If, however, the court decides that Mr. Barreto Leiva is innocent or that the conviction imposed on him was not according to the Law, the court shall order appropriate measures of reparations for the time that Mr. Barreto Leiva was deprived of liberty and for all the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him. This obligation must be complied with within a reasonable time. 131. The Court recalls that the obligation to provide reparations, which is governed in every aspect by international Law, must not be altered or breached by the respondent State on the basis of its domestic law.74 3. Domestic legal effects 72 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres V. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C 148, para. 98; Case of Bayarri V. Argentina, supra note 20, para. 126 and Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C Nº 190, para. 58. 73 74 See Case of La Cantuta V. Peru, supra note 40, para. 201. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 141; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Reten de Catia) V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C Nº. 150, para. 117; Case of Ximenes Lopez V. Brazil, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C Nº. 149, para. 209.