310. The Court has corroborated that, according to Memorandum No. FEEPC-1082014 – which the State provided to this Court – the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor indicated that no public authority had authorized the construction of this highway and that, according to the inquiries made by the investigators, the situation did not constitute the offense of abuse of authority […].” 329 Based on the evidence in the case file, the Court notes that the petitioners were not advised of either the findings of the inspection of the area or the conclusion regarding the non-constitution of the offense of abuse of authority, and this could have prevented them from making use of the available remedies to appeal that decision. 311. The Court considers that the failure to notify the decision on the complaint filed for the alleged perpetration of the offense of abuse of authority, as well as the delay in the commencement of the investigation, violated the right of access to justice and the principle of a reasonable time because, more than four years after the complaint was filed, the State has not notified the Punta Piedra community or its representatives that the proceedings have concluded. 312. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and its members. X REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 313. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 330 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to provide adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 331 314. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm that has been proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and according to law. 332 Cf. Memorandum No. FEEPC-108-2014 of the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor addressed to the Coordinator of the International Affairs Unit, to inform about the current status of the complaints at the domestic level, of October 2, 2014 (evidence file, folios 2327 to 2328). 330 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[I]f 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.” 331 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al., supra, para. 149. 332 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 Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al., supra, para. 149. 329 88