114 next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang must be considered victims because the State has damaged their psychological and moral integrity.273 233. Pursuant to the above, the Court arrives at the conclusion that the State violated Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang: Lucrecia Hernández Mack, Yam Mack Choy, Zoila Chang Lau, Helen Mack Chang, Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang and Ronald Chang Apuy. XII APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) 234. Pursuant to the foregoing explanation in the previous chapters, the Court found that the State is responsible for violation of Article 4 of the Convention to the detriment of Myrna Mack Chang and of Articles 5, 8 and 25 of that same Convention to the detriment of her next of kin, all of them in combination with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. In its case law, this Court has established that it is a principle of International Law that any violation to an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation.274 For this, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, according to which, [i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 235. As the Court has stated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention contains a common-law provision that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law regarding the responsibility of the States. According to it, when an illegal act attributable to the State takes place, the latter immediately incurs a responsibility for the violation of the international provision involved, with the attendant duty of providing reparations and of making the consequences of said violation cease.275 236. Reparation of the damage caused by infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the previous situation, If this is not possible, as in the instant case, it is for the international court to determine a set of measures, in addition to ensuring the rights abridged, to address the consequences of the infractions, as well as ordering payment of a compensation for the damage caused.276 The State under the obligation cannot invoke domestic legal provisions to modify or avoid complying with its obligations to redress, which are regulated in all their aspects (scope, nature, modes, and establishment of the beneficiaries) by International Law.277 273 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 101; Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 250, para. 162; and Eur. Court H.R., Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, paras. 130-134. 274 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 70; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 147; and “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 9, para. 173. 275 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 71; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 148; and “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 9, para. 174. 276 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 72; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 149; and Las Palmeras Case. Reparations, supra note 10, para. 38.