Barrios Alzul, Luis Alberto Alzul, Annarys Alexandra Barrios Rangel, Benito Antonio Barrios Rangel, Orianny Nazareth Pelae, Oriana Nazareth Pelae, Michael José Barrios Espinosa, Dinosca Alexandra Barrios Espinosa, Marcos Antonio Diaz Barrios, Sandra Marivi Betancourt Barrios, Junior José Betancourt Barrios, Wilneidys Betania Pimentel Barrios, Beatriz Adriana Cabrera Barrios, Victor Daniel Cabrera Barrios, Luilmari Carolina Guzmán Barrios and Luiseidys Yulianny Guzmán Barrios. Final considerations on the facts previously analyzed 313. Having analyzed the facts of this case, the Court concludes that Venezuela: (a) is responsible for the violations committed by police agents of Aragua state in relation to the rights to life, to personal integrity and liberty, to privacy, to property, and to movement and residence of different members of the Barrios family; (b) failed to comply with the obligation of protection and prevention with regard to five beneficiaries of measures of protection ordered by the organs of the inter-American system, and (c) failed to conduct a serious and diligent investigation of the facts of the case. 314. The Court considers that the events that occurred to the detriment of numerous members of the Barrios family cannot be analyzed in isolation, because there are connections between several of them, as indicated in this judgment. Indeed, the attempts against the life of their members, especially starting in 2004, had common characteristics: the deaths were the result of several shots from a firearm in places near their homes in the village of Guanayén. In all these cases, the State was aware of the situation of risk of the different members of the family who were beneficiaries of precautionary or provisional measures and who also denounced the threats and other facts at the domestic level. Their denunciations attributed responsibility to police officials of Aragua state. To date, none of the investigations opened into the facts of the instant case have concluded with the clarification of the facts and the punishment of those responsible. To the contrary, several of these proceedings have been archived or are still at the preliminary stages of the investigation. XII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 315. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,400 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm gives rises to the obligation to repair it adequately,401 and that this provision “reflects a provision of customary law that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”402 400 Article 63(1) of the American Convention stipulates: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by th[e] 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. 401 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 25, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al., supra note 12, para. 239. 402 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales), supra note 43, para. 62, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al., supra note 12, para. 239. 98