argued that it had not been negligent in the face of Mr. Gómez Virula’s disappearance and subsequent death, and that both the National Police and the Public Prosecution Service had taken the necessary steps to investigate what happened, fulfilling their duty to investigate in relation to Mr. Gómez Virula’s family. B. Considerations of the Court 93. The Court notes that the arguments concerning the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of the family are based on the State’s supposed responsibility for Mr. Gómez Virula’s disappearance and death and the failure to investigate the facts adequately. The Court considers that the State does not bear international responsibility with regard to this right – recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention – because the State’s participation in the disappearance and death of Mr. Gómez Virula has not been proved and the failure to investigate the events has been analyzed in the chapter on the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in which they were declared victims. Consequently, the Court considers that the State did not violate the right to personal integrity of Antonio Gómez Areano and Paula Virula Dionicio. VIII REPARATIONS 94. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to repair this adequately and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.145 In addition, the Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the damage proved and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. 146 Therefore, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors to rule correctly and pursuant to law.147 95. In its answering brief, the State indicated, in general, that “the State of Guatemala does not consider it viable to attend to the claims for reparations proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights” or those of the Centro para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos. 96. Bearing in mind the arguments submitted, and without prejudice to any form of reparation that is subsequently agreed upon by the State and the victims, and also based on the considerations on the merits, as well as the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the victims’ representatives, as well as the corresponding observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation in order to establish measures aimed at redressing the harm caused. 148 145 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 192. Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 194. 146 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 194. 147 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 195. 148 25