55 right of the next of kin to know the truth, which is subsumed in the right of the victim or their next of kin to obtain from the competent State authorities, clarification of the facts of the violations and the corresponding responsibilities, by way of an investigation and prosecution as established in Articles 8 and 25(1) of the Convention.279 171. The failure to comply with the obligation to open an investigation ex officio, the absence of clear and logical lines of investigation that would have taken into account the context of the facts and their complexity, the long periods of procedural inactivity, the refusal to provide information on the military operations, the lack of diligence and thoroughness in the investigations by the authorities in charge of them, and the lack of coordination between the various State bodies, permit the Court to conclude that all the domestic proceedings have not constituted effective remedies to determine the fate or to discover the whereabouts of the victims, or to guarantee their rights of access to justice and to know the truth, through the investigation and eventual punishment of those responsible, and full reparation for the consequences of the violations. 172. Finally, in the instant case the Court has confirmed that the State’s power was used as a means and a resource for violating rights that should have been respected and guaranteed.280 This situation was aided by the impunity surrounding these grave violations, encouraged and tolerated in all the investigations, which have neither been consistent with each other nor sufficient to properly elucidate the facts. Consequently, they have not satisfactorily fulfilled their obligation to investigate effectively the forced disappearance of the then children. 173. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 7(6), 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, and of their next of kin. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 174. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,281 the Court has indicated that that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary law on State responsibility.282 175. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the 279 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 206, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra, para. 220. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 66, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 300. 280 Article 63(1) of the Convention states: “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.” 281 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 243. 282