27 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.24 88. Whenever possible, reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation 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 a series of measures to ensure that, in addition to guaranteeing respect for the violated rights, the consequences of the violations are remedied and compensation paid for the damage caused.25 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.26 89. Reparations, as the term indicates, consist of the measures intended to mitigate or eliminate the effects of the violations that have been committed. Their nature and their amount depend on both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused.27 In this regard, the reparations that are established must be proportionate to the violations declared in the preceding chapters of this judgment. A) AGREEMENT ON REPARATIONS 90. The State and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin presented an agreement on the methods and time limits for complying with the reparations during the written stage of the proceedings before the Court (supra paras. 28 and 29). The Court must assess whether this agreement is compatible with the pertinent provisions of the American Convention, and verify whether it guarantees the payment of fair compensation to the next of kin of the victim and repairs the different consequences of the human rights violations committed in this case.28 B) BENEFICIARIES 91. The agreement on the methods and time limits for complying with the reparations establishes that the beneficiaries of the reparations are as follows: 1. Pedro Huilca Tecse; 2. Martha Flores Gutiérrez, Pedro Huilca Tecse’s companion from 1977 until his death; 24 Cf. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 223; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 7, para. 258; and Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 193. 25 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 22, para. 87; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 23, para. 53; and Case of De La Cruz Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 140. 26 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 23, para. 231; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 22, para. 87; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 23, para. 53. 27 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 22, para. 89; Case of Tibi, supra note 24, para. 225; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 7, para. 261. 28 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte. Reparations, supra note 6, para. 23.