living with HIV, which is also essential for their physical and mental well-being.236 In this regard, the Court considers that, in this case, those close friends who have accompanied the presumed victims, and regarding whom it has been proved that they suffered owing to the violations committed against their loved ones, may be considered victims. 196. In this case, the Court notes that Luz Imelda Lucas de León, who the Commission named as a friend of Rita Dubón Orozco, accompanied Mrs. Dubón on different occasions during her illness up until she died. In particular, the Court notes Mrs. Lucas de León’s suffering owing to the stigma and discrimination experienced by Mrs. Dubón and the effects of the lack of drugs and comprehensive medical care on the latter’s health. The omissions of the State were the cause of the negative effects suffered by Mrs. Dubón, and the Court therefore concludes that the State is responsible for violating the personal integrity of Mrs. Lucas de León. Furthermore, regarding the next of kin who have already been declared victims in this case, the Court notes that the effects they may have suffered have been subsumed in the analysis of the right to personal integrity; consequently, it does not find it pertinent to rule on them. 197. Consequently, taking into consideration the circumstances of this case and that the State has not contested the arguments and evidence presented by the Commission and the representatives in relation to the effects suffered by the victims’ next of kin, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin mentioned in Annex 2 to this judgment. IX. REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 198. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,237 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to make adequate redress, 238 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.239 199. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consistis in the restoration of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, whih occurs in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to ensure the rights that have World Health Organization, What is the impact of HIV on families? 2005, p. 13. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/74664/E87762.pdf 236 Article 63(1) of the Convention establishes: “[i]f 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.” 237 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 466. 238 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 24, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 466. 239 68