110 402. However, it has been established in the proven facts of the case that, on several occasions, some property of Globovisión was damaged, in particular, its premises, vehicles and part of the technological transmission equipment (supra para. 191, 197, 200, 214, 216, 211, 220 and 239). That is, the damage was caused to the premises and assets of Globovisión, as a company or legal entity. It has not been clearly proven that the damage to such assets was translated into an abridgment of the rights of Mr. Ravell and Zuloaga, in their capacity as shareholders of the company. Moreover, in some of the facts it has been established that security agents protected the alleged victims in risk situations, in which the priority was clearly the life and integrity of the people and not the transmission equipment. As to the security expenses which Globovisión have incurred for the protection of the premises and its workers, such outlays may be related to the facts of the instant case, though not only to them. 403. The Court considers that the alleged facts as violation of the right to property of Mr. Ravell and Zuloaga coincide with the arguments alleged supra as acts attributable to undetermined individuals who obstructed, on certain occasions, exercise of the profession of the alleged victims. These acts form part of the context and type of situations already analyzed in the chapter related to Article 1(1) of the Convention in connection with Articles 5 and 13 therein. Therefore, the Court deems that it has not been proven that the State violated the right to property of the alleged victims, under the terms of Article 21 of the Convention. XI REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 358 404. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation359. All aspects of this obligation to make reparations are regulated by international law360. The Court has based its decisions in this regard on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. other half to Sociedad Mercantil DNS Inversiones 2000, C.A. (Cf., minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of Corpomedios GV Inversiones, C.A., of February 1, 2000; records of evidence, volume XIV, pages 4171 and subs.) In turn, the company Unitel de Venezuela C.A., by May 15, 2000, was formed by the shareholders Guillermo Antonio Zuloaga Núñez, who holds 66% of the shares and Alberto Federico Ravell, who holds 17% of the shares, and Montferrat S.A. holds the remaining 17% of the shares (Cf., minutes of the Extraordinary General Meeting of UNITEL de Venezuela C.A., May 15, 2000; records of evidence, volume XIV, pages 4151 and subs.). On January 3, 2005, it was registered an increase in the share capital of UNITEL de Venezuela, C.A, but such increase did not affect the percentage of shareholding. (Cf. Minutes of the Ordinary General Meeting of UNITEL de Venezuela C.A., of January 3, 2005 (records of evidence, volume XIV, pages 4164 and subs.). 358 Article 63(1) of the Convention provides that: 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. 359 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 198; Case of Bayarri, supra note 22, para. 119. 360 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. V. Surinam. Merits. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11, para. 44; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 198; Case of Bayarri, supra note 22, para. 120.