6 payment of a just compensation to the victims’ next of kin is guaranteed and whether the various consequences of the human rights violations committed in the instant case are redressed. 24. This Court has repeatedly cited the principle of international law that applies to this subject, which is that any violation of an international obligation carries with it the obligation to make adequate reparation. 2 25. Reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which is to reinstate the situation that existed prior to commission of the violation. If full restitution is not feasible, an international court can order the adoption of measures to guarantee the violated rights and redress the effects that the violations have had, including payment of compensation for the damages caused. 3 V BENEFICIARIES OF THE REPARATIONS 26. Clause three of the agreement stipulates that the beneficiaries of the reparations shall be Virginia Bonifacia Ugarte Rivera de Durand and Nolberto Durand Vargas, parents of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and sister and brother-in-law, respectively, of Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera. The agreement also stipulates that no other natural or juridical person may claim direct or indirect benefits under the agreement. * * * 27. The Court notes that the identity of the persons named as beneficiaries is not in contention. The designation of these persons as beneficiaries is consistent with the Court’s case law.4 The Court, therefore, endorses the agreement in this regard. These persons are the designated beneficiaries on two counts: as legal heirs of their deceased next of kin, and as the victims of the violation of articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, as declared in the judgment on the merits. The Court believes that on both these counts, Virginia Bonifacia Ugarte Rivera de Durand and Nolberto Durand Vargas must be regarded as the beneficiaries of the reparations in the instant case. 2 Cf. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraph 163; Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, paragraph 32, and The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, paragraph 59. See also Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184; Factory at Chorzow, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 29; y Factory at Chorzow, Claim for Indemnity, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 8, p. 21. 3 Cf. Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 33; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 60; and The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al. v. Guatemala). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, paragraph 76. 4 Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 67; The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al. v. Guatemala). Reparations, supra note 3, paragraph 84, and Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series D No. 43, paragraph 86.