32 the Court finds that there was no violation of the principle of the public nature of the proceedings established in Article 8(5) of the American Convention. C. Conclusion 123. Based on the foregoing and taking into account that Messrs. Girón and Castillo did not have an opportune defense and, particularly, that they were not guaranteed the right to a professional defense in proceedings involving the death penalty, which resulted in the arbitrary deprivation of life of the alleged victims, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Article 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 4(1) of the Convention, and Article 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza. Finally, the Court considers that the State did not violate Article 8(5) of the American Convention to the detriment of Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza. IX REPARATIONS 124. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.116 125. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in reestablishment of the previous situation.117 If this is not possible, as in most cases of human rights violations, this Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of such violations.118 Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm comprehensively; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition, have special relevance for the harm caused.119 126. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Consequently, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with law.120 127. Bearing in mind the violations declared in the previous chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 59. 117 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 60. 118 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 60. 119 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 60. 120 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 61. 116