-74- Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life 130. The Court considers that, in the instant case, the body of evidence does not contain reliable elements leading to the conclusion that the sisters, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, were arbitrarily deprived of the right to life. In this regard, the Court considers that, since it lacks jurisdiction to rule on the alleged forced disappearance of Ernestina and Erlinda, it cannot presume, as in other cases in which the alleged facts are based on the crime of forced disappearance, that the right to life has been violated. 131. In this regard, as mentioned previously in this judgment (supra para. 97), it is possible that the sisters, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, are alive, since the young people found by the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda who disappeared in the 1982 “guinda de mayo,” when they were children, were found alive (supra para. 48(8)). 132. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court will not rule on the alleged violation of Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, because it lacks jurisdiction to rule on possible violations that arose from facts or acts that occurred prior to June 6, 1995, or that began to be executed before that date, on which El Salvador deposited the instrument accepting the Court’s jurisdiction with the OAS General Secretariat, as decided by the Court in the judgment on preliminary objections (supra para. 21). XI REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OBLIGATION TO REPAIR 133. As stated in the preceding chapters, the Court has decided that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz and their next of kin, and of Article 5 thereof to the detriment of the latter, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. This Court has established that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.36 In this regard, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which stipulates: 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. Consequently, the Court will now consider the measures needed to repair the damage caused to Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz and their next of kin owing to the said violations of the Convention. 36 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 230; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para., 85; and Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 8, para. 138.