45 for the breach of the international norm involved, together with the subsequent duty of reparation and put an end to the consequences of said violation.89 147. The reparation of the damage caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoring the situation that existed before the violation occurred. When this is not possible, as in the present case, it is the task of the International tribunal to order the adoption of a series of measures that, besides guaranteeing respect for the rights violated, will ensure that the damage resulting from the infractions is repaired, as well as establish payment of an indemnity as compensation for the harm caused.90 It is necessary to add measures of a positive nature that the State must adopt in order to ensure that detrimental acts like those of the present case do not occur again.91 The obligation to repair, which is regulated in all its aspects (scope, nature, modalities, and designation of beneficiaries) by international law, cannot be altered or eluded by the State’s invocation of its domestic law.92 148. Reparations, as the term indicates, consist in those measures necessary to make the effects of the committed violations disappear. Their nature and amount depend on the harm caused at both material and moral levels. Reparations cannot entail either enrichment or impoverishment of the victim or his or her family.93 In this sense, reparations established must be coherent with the violations stated in the previous paragraphs. 149. Based on the evidence recollected during the process and in light of the aforementioned criteria, the Court will proceed to analyze the submissions presented by the Commission and the representatives regarding reparations, in order to determine, first of all, who are the beneficiaries of the reparations, and then determine the pertinent remedial measures for the reparation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as regarding other forms of reparation, and finally, that regarding costs and expenses. A) BENEFICIARIES 150. The Court will proceed to summarize the arguments of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives regarding who should be considered as beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION 89 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 121; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 88, para. 87; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 134. 90 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 122; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 88, para. 88; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 134. 91 Cfr. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 135; Case of Carpio Nicolle and others, Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 88; and Case of Plan de Sánchez Masacre. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 54. 92 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 122; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 88, para. 88; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 135. 93 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 123; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 88, para. 89; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 136.