35 torture of Mr. Bayarri, who also enjoyed the protection of the Argentine Federal Police. In this regard, the Court has established that the alleged victim, his next of kin or his representatives may invoke different rights from those included in the Commission’s application, based on the facts described therein.118 The facts that presumably gave rise to the alleged partiality and lack of independence of the judicial authorities when processing this criminal case cannot be inferred from the application and, consequently, the Court is unable to examine them (supra paras. 29 and 30). X REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 119. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has resulted in harm entails the obligation to repair it adequately.119 The Court has based its decisions in this regard on Article 63(1) of the American Convention.120 120. Whenever possible, reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires full restitution (restitution in integrum), which consists in the re-establishment of the situation prior to the violation that was committed. If this is not possible, as indeed it is not in all cases, the international court must determine the measures that will guarantee the violated rights and repair the consequences of the violations produced, as well as establish payment of compensation for the damage caused,121 and ensure the non-repetition of harmful acts such as those that occurred in this case.122 International law regulates all aspects (scope, nature, methods and determination of the beneficiaries) of the obligation to make reparation, and the State may not invoke provisions of domestic law to modify or fail to comply with this.123 121. Reparations consist of measures tending to eliminate or reduce and compensate the effects of the violations that have been committed. Their nature and amount depend on the characteristics of the violation and the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused.124 118 Cf. case of the "Five Pensioners", supra note 16; case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 93, para. 128; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 212. 119 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 35, para. 214; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 217. 120 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates that: If 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. 121 Cf. case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 119, paras. 25 and 26; case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 30, para. 415; and La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 201. 122 Cf. Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 41; Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 141; and case of La Cantuta, supra note 121, para. 201. 123 Cf. case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 119, para. 30; case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 30, para. 414; and case of La Cantuta, supra note 121, para. 161. 124 Cf. Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, paras. 86 and 87; case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 30, para. 416; and case of La Cantuta, supra note 121, para. 202.