31 to say, through an act requesting forgiveness, personally addressed to Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler and his next of kin. This, according to the statement made by the State, contributes to the “dignification of the victim and of his next of kin.” 60. By reason of the foregoing, and pursuant to the Order of the Court of March 10, 2005, and considering the statements made by the representatives rejecting the proposal by the State to try and reach a friendly settlement regarding the reparations and costs and expenses of this action (supra para. 30), the Court shall proceed to determine them. APPLICATION OF IX REPARATIONS ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION Obligation to Repair 61. This Court has determined that it is a principle of International law that all violations of an international obligation which cause damage must be adequately make reparations.28 In its decisions in that respect, the Court based on Article 63.1 of the American Convention that states the following: 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 party harmed 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 party harmed. 62. Section 63(1) of the American Convention codifies a rule of custom which is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law regarding the responsibility of States. Upon the occurrence of an internationally wrongful act attributable to a State, the international liability of such State arises, with the consequent duty to make reparations and to have the consequences of the violation remedied.29 63. The reparation of the damage caused by the infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of the return to the state of affairs prior to the infringement. If this is not feasible, as it happens in the majority of cases – the instant case among others-, the International Court shall determine the measures to be ordered to protect the rights that were affected, as well as to make reparations the consequences the infringements brought about and shall determine a compensation for the damage caused.30 It is necessary to add the positive measures that the State must adopt to 28 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 3, para. 145; Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 230; and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 3, para. 122. 29 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 3, para. 146; Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 231; and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 3, para. 122. 30 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 3, para. 147; Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 232; and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 3, para. 123.