49 115. In accordance with the previous paragraphs, and in light of the full acquiescence made by the State (supra para. 26), the Court declared that Venezuela violated the rights acknowledged in Articles 4 and 5(1), 5(2), 5(4), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention and failed to comply with the obligations provided for in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Court has determined, in several occasions,that all violations of an international obligation which cause damage, purports the duty to make adequate reparations.162 In this regard, Article 63(1) of the American Convention sets forth that: [i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by th[e] Convention, the Court shall rule that the party harmed 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 cured and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 116. As stated by the Court in previous cases, Article 63(1) of the American Convention codifies a rule of custom which is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law regarding the responsibility of States. This way, upon the occurrence of a wrongful act attributable to a State, the international liability of such State arises, with the consequent duty to make reparations and to have the consequences of the violation remedied.163 117. The reparation of the damage caused by the infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of the return to the state of affairs prior to the infringement. If this is not feasible, the International Court shall determine the measures to be ordered to protect the rights that were affected, as well as to make reparations of the consequences the infringements brought about and shall determine a compensation for the damage caused.164 It is necessary to add the positive measures that the State must adopt to prevent repetition of the harmful events such as those that occurred in the instant case.165 It is a principle of general International Law that the obligation to make reparations, that covers all issues concerned (scope, nature, methods of compliance and determination of beneficiaries) cannot be modified or unfulfilled by the State alleging its domestic laws.166 118. Reparations are measures tending to eliminate the effects of the violations committed. Their nature and amount depend on both the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage caused. Such reparations shall not result in the victims or their successors becoming richer or poorer.167 162 Cf. Community, 163 Cf. Community, Case supra Case supra of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 174; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous note 120, para. 195 , and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 3, para. 294. of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 175; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous note 120, para. 196, and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 3, para. 295. 164 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 176; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 120, para. 197, and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 3, para. 296. 165 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 176; Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 143, para. 182, and Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 3, para. 69. 166 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 175; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 120, para. 197, and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 3, para. 296. 167 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 177; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 120, para. 198, and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 3, para. 297.