Among the rules applicable to this case, which, as stated, are international standards of practice, one establishes the duty for on who creates a risk for third parties to act with full control of that risk at all times, in order to prevent any damage to others, which could result from possible and foreseeable circumstances; a related obligation is for one who passes another vehicle to maintain sufficient visibility, and not to start passing at an intersection, curve bridge or other dangerous place; duty is to yield to pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing, at all times in areas where there are no traffic lights, and as indicated where there are traffic lights. In our legislation, such principles are established in Articles 37, 39, and 40 of Decree Law N° 692/92, which regulates automobile traffic. 139. The Court finds that among the grounds for the conviction that specifies the “duty of care” required of the defendant, the judgment refers to, on one hand, “[t]he rules of care” applicable to the case as “international standards of practice” and, on the other, to the “principles” of such practices contained in traffic regulations (Decree Law N° 692/92) which had still not entered into force at the time of the events. 140. The Court, considering that the above matters deal with criminal issues that must be examined by a higher court, which must hear the appeal against the conviction, as required as a consequence of having declared a violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Mohamed (supra para. 117 and infra para. 152), does not deem it appropriate to determine whether or not the considerations in the preceding paragraphs imply a violation of Article 9 of the Convention. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 141. Based on the provisions of Article 63 (1) of the American Convention110, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation111 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on State responsibility.112 142. Reparation for the damage caused by a breach of an international obligation requires, wherever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reinstating the situation that existed prior to the violation. Where this is not possible, as happens in the majority of cases involving human rights violations, the Court will order measures to guarantee respect for the infringed rights and ensure that the damage caused by the violations is repaired.113 Therefore, in this case, the Court has considered 110 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[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.” Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 239. 111 112 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 40, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 239. 113 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 26; Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, para. 33, and Case of Massacres of Río Negro v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 248. 39