114. In the instant case, the seriousness of the events that led to Mr. Aroca Palma’s death allows the Court to presume that his father and mother’s personal integrity was affected as a result of the State’s conduct in violating the human rights examined in this judgment. 115. Furthermore, in giving testimony before this Court Mrs. Cynthia Aroca spoke of the harm that had been done to her family as a consequence of her brother’s death. It had an impact on her parents, her brother, her paternal grandmother and paternal aunt, who were part of the family circle at the time of the events. She said that the pain that his parents felt caused by the death of their son did not diminish as the years went by. 88 116. The Court established that Mr. Winston Joffre Aroca Melgar, father of Joffre Aroca, urged the competent authorities to investigate what had happened (supra para. 40), with the result, as already mentioned, that the only person declared responsible for the killing did not serve his sentence. 117. The Court also notes that, at the time of the events, Mr. Aroca Palma’s family circle consisted, in addition to his parents and his siblings, of his paternal grandmother and paternal aunt, the latter of whom filed a criminal complaint for the death of her nephew (supra para. 30). Consequently, all the people mentioned should be regarded as victims. 118. Therefore, the Court is convinced that Mr. Aroca Palma’s death affected his family members’ mental and moral integrity. The State’s claims notwithstanding, the authorities’ actions at the judicial level cannot be construed as a “restitution” of the victims’ rights, especially since the only person convicted of the crime never served his sentence. 119. Therefore, the Ecuadorian State is internationally responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the following members of Joffre Aroca’s family: Winston Joffre Aroca Melgar, father; Perla Palma Sánchez, mother; Cynthia Aroca Palma, sister; Ronald Aroca Palma, brother; Amalia Melgar Solórzano, paternal grandmother, and Amalia Antonieta Aroca Melgar, paternal aunt. IX REPARATIONS 120. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has held that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 89 121. Reparation of harm brought about by the violation of an international obligation means, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which includes the restoration of the prior situation. If this is not possible, the Court will order measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of the violations. 90 Therefore, the Court has seen the need to award different types of reparation in order to provide comprehensive redress for the harm; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, as well as guarantees of non-repetition, are particularly relevant to the harm Cf. Testimony of Cynthia Aroca Palma, rendered at a public hearing before this Court. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 90. 90 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 65, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 91. 88 89 24