23 of the victim or to third parties, owing to the victim’s death, can be claimed in their own right; and i) During the case, violations of the rights of the closest family “members by blood and by marriage,” for whom the facts that occurred “doubtless gave rise to such a degree of anguish, caused directly by the acts and omissions of the Honduran State, that the Court took this into consideration when delivering its judgment.” Considerations of the Court 53. Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes 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. 54. According to Article 63(1) of the Convention, once the violations have been established, the Court shall rule on the corresponding reparations. This norm has been complemented by Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which establishes that Article 63(1) of the Convention “may be invoked at any stage of the proceedings,” in other words, according to its Rules of Procedure, the Court is not required, as the State asserts, to rule separately on the reparations, or to submit to the consideration of the parties the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement. In this respect, the judgment of June 7, 2003, in keeping with the Court’s consistent case law declared that:42 147. Pursuant to the foregoing explanation in previous chapters, the Court has found, in connection with the facts in this case, that Articles 7, 5, 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention were breached, all of them in combination with Article 1(1) of that Convention, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez and, in some of these instances, with one or all of his next of kin [...]. This Court has reiterated, in its case law, that it is a principle of international law that all violations to an international obligation that have caused harm generate an obligation to adequately redress said harm.43 To this end, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention [...]. 148. As the Court has pointed out, Article 63(1) of the American Convention reflects a common law rule that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law regarding the responsibility of States. Thus, when an illegal act is attributable to a State, the latter incurs immediately the international responsibility for violation of an international rule, with the attendant duty to redress and to make the consequences of the violation cease.44 149. Redress of the harm caused by infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the situation prior to the violation. If this is not possible, as in the instant 42 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 147 to 150. “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 20, para. 173; Cantos case, supra note 15, para. 66; Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 37; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 76; and Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 60. 43 44 Cf. “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 20, para. 174; Cantos case, supra note 15, para. 67; Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 37; and El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 76.