6 1. When no specific ruling on reparations has been made in the judgment on the merits, the Court shall set the time and determine the procedure for the deferred decision thereon. 2. If the Court is informed that the parties to the case have reached an agreement in regard to the execution of the judgment on the merits, it shall verify the fairness of the agreement and rule accordingly. 21. In operative paragraph six of the March 14, 2001 judgment on the merits of the case (supra pars. 3 and 8), the Court ruled that reparations would be determined by mutual agreement among the respondent State, the Inter-American Commission and the victims, their next of kin or their duly accredited legal representatives, within three months from the date when notice of the judgment was served. In this context, on September 17, 2001 Peru sent the agreement formally signed in Lima, Peru, on August 22, 2001. 22. In the judgment on the merits (supra par. 3, 8, and 21), the Court granted a term for the parts to agree on reparations. The agreement on reparations occurred after that term. However, taking into account that there is no controversy on the reparations, the Court decides to examine the aforementioned agreement. 23. In light of the above, the Court is to assess whether the agreement on reparations is fully compatible with the relevant provisions of the American Convention, and verify whether it guarantees payment of just compensation to the victims and, where appropriate, to their next of kin, and if it repairs the consequences of the situation resulting from the violation of their human rights. 24. This Court has repeatedly stated in its case law that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation which has caused damage carries with it the duty to make adequate reparation for it2. 25. Reparation for damage caused by a breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the previous situation. If that were not possible, the international 2 Cfr. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. C Series No. 79, par. 163; Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 31, 2001. C Series No. 78, par. 32; “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. C Series No. 77, par. 59; “White van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. C Series No. 76, par.75; Ivcher Bronstein Case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. C Series No. 74, par.177; Baena Ricardo et al. Case Judgment of February 2, 2001. C Series No. 72, par. 201; Constitutional Court Case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. C Series No. 71, par. 118; Suárez Rosero Case. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. C Series No. 44, par.40; Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. C Series No. 42, par.84; Caballero Delgado y Santana Case. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 29, 1997. C Series No. 31, par.15; Neira Alegría et al. Case. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 19, 1996. C Series No. 29, par.36; El Amparo Case. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 14, 1996. C Series No. 28, par.14; and Aloeboetoe et al. Case. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 10, 1993. C Series No. 15, par.43. Likewise, Cfr. Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184; Factory at Chorzów, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 29; and Factory at Chorzów, Claim for Indemnity, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 8, p. 21.