171. In conclusion, the Court considers that the girl suffered institutional violence during the judicial procedure, in particular, following the first forensic medical examination, the first interview with Prosecutor N.T.A. and her interrogation during the second hearing. The girl and her family turned to the judicial system seeking protection and to obtain restitution of her violated rights. However, not only did the State not comply with the enhanced due diligence and special protection required in the judicial process where a situation of sexual violence was investigated, but it responded with a new form of violence. In this regard, in addition to the violation of the right of access to justice without discrimination, the Court considers that the State exercised institutional violence, causing greater harm and multiplying the traumatic experience suffered by Brisa. Consequently, this Court determines that the re-victimizing acts carried out by state officers to the detriment of Brisa De Angulo Losada constituted institutional violence and must be classified, taking into account the magnitude of the suffering caused, as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment pursuant to Article 5(2) of the American Convention, as established in Article 1(1) thereof. B.5 Conclusion 172. In view of the above, the Court considers that Bolivia is responsible for the violation of the rights to humane treatment, to a fair trial, to private and family life, to the rights of the child, to equality before the law and judicial protection, pursuant to Articles 5(1), 5(2), 8(1), 11(2), 19, 24 and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as well as the breach of the obligations derived from Articles 7(b), 7(c), 7(e) and 7(f) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Brisa De Angulo Losada. VIII REPARATIONS 173. 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 duty to adequately repair it, and that this provision includes a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on the responsibility of a State.310 174. Reparation for harm caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of the restoration of the original condition. If this is not feasible, as occurs in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights and repair the consequences produced by the violations.311 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant various measures of reparation in order to comprehensively compensate for the harm, which is why, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the damages caused.312 175. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the declared violations, the proven damages, as well as the measures requested to repair the respective damages. Therefore, the Court must observe said concurrence to rule appropriately and in accordance with law.313 The Court also considers that reparations must include an analysis that Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 8, 2022. Series C No. 471, para. 120. 310 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 2, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 121. 311 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 Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 121. 312 313 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 121. 56