99 Oyague-Fierro, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Bertila Lozano-Torres, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa, and Felipe Flores-Chipana (supra para. 116). The State further breached the rights established in Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the above-named persons’ next of kin (supra paras. 112, 129 and 161). 199. It is a principle of International Law that any breach of an international obligation resulting in harm gives rise to the duty to adequately redress such harm.158 The Court has based its decisions on this issue on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, under which: [i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right of 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. 200. Article 63(1) of the American Convention embodies an accepted tenet that is a fundamental principle of the contemporary International Law on the responsibility of States. The occurrence of a wrongful act that is attributable to a State gives rise to the State’s international liability, and its resulting duty to make reparation for and remove the consequences of the violation.159 The obligation to compensate is governed by International Law and it may be neither modified nor disregarded by the State in reliance upon its domestic law.160 201. The reparation of the damage flowing from a breach of an international obligation calls for, if practicable, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring a previously-existing situation. If not feasible, the international court will then be required to define a set of measures such that, in addition to ensuring the enjoyment of the rights that were violated, the consequences of those breaches may be remedied and compensation provided for the damage thereby caused.161 In addition, there is also the State’s obligation to adopt affirmative measures to guarantee that no injurious occurrences such as those analyzed in the case at hand will take place in the future.162 202. Reparations are measures aimed at removing the effects of the violations. Their nature and amount are dependent upon the specifics of the violation and the damage inflicted at both the pecuniary and non pecuniary levels. These measures may neither enrich 158 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 140; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 115, and Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 208. 159 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 141; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 209; and Case of Ituango Massacress, supra note 8, para. 346. 160 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 141; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 117, and Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 209. 161 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 142; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 117, y Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 209. 162 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 136; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 142; and Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 06, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 176.