the Court has declared violated in this judgment. In addition, it is evident that the State has not taken the necessary positive measures to reverse that exclusion. 275. Based on the above, and in accordance with the violations of the rights declared previously, the Court finds that the State has not adopted sufficient and effective measures to guarantee, without discrimination, the rights of the members of the Xákmok Kásek Community and its members, in keeping with Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to the rights recognized in Articles 21(1), 8(1), 25(1), 4(1), 3, and 19 thereof. XII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 276. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that results in harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation,302 and that this provision “reflects a customary norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”303 277. The Court will therefore proceed to examine the claims of the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State in this regard, so as to order measures tending to repair the violations declared in this judgment. 1. Injured party 278. The Court will consider as injured parties the members of the Xákmok Kásek Community who suffered the violations declared in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI of this judgment. 2. Measures of restitution 279. The Commission asked that the State be ordered to take the necessary measures to realize the right to property of the Community and its members and their possession of their ancestral territory as soon as possible; “in particular by delimiting, demarcating and granting title to their land, in accordance with their customary law, values, practices and customs.” It also asked that the Court order “the adoption of the necessary measures to safeguard the habitat claimed by the indigenous community, until the ancestral territory has been delimited, demarcated and titled in favor of the Community, […] specifically those measures intended to prevent immediate and irreparable harm due to the activities of third parties.” In addition, it indicated that only “if objective and well-founded reasons make it impossible for the State to award the land identified as the Community's traditional territory, the State must grant it alternate lands of sufficient size and quality, to be selected by consensus.” In addition, the representatives asked that the State be ordered to return their lands, in sufficient 302 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala supra note 8, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 211. 303 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 211. 64