41 151. The State mentioned that the Court “throughout its jurisprudence, has held that the facts that may be the object of the debate before the Inter-American Tribunal, are those established in the application presented by the Commission […], with the exception of the supervening facts and those that help clarify the ones presented in the application” and that violations of rights different to those included in the application “shall refer only to the facts established by the Commission in its application.” Based on this the State argued that the representatives want to “ignore the Inter-American jurisprudence, and include in the present proceedings facts not contemplated in the Commission’s application […], and that in no case may be considered supervening.” Specifically, the State indicated that the alleged “dishonor and humiliation” and other damages of a moral nature are new facts not included in the application. Therefore, the State requested that the mentioned facts, as well as the right invoked in them, “be excluded and omitted in the issuing of the judgment.” Additionally, the State indicated that the representatives “have limited themselves to presenting a series of statements without offering any evidentiary support whatsoever” and that the SPA’s judgment “adopted the measures necessary to avoid” that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo’s right to humane treatment be violated. 152. The Court points out that the facts regarding the publication of the dismissal of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo were not presented in the Commission’s application, nor are they limited to explaining or clarifying the facts mentioned in it, and that they therefore constitute new facts and, thus, are not part of the factual framework of the present case. Additionally, these facts do not constitute supervening facts. Thus, based on the reasons exposed in paragraphs 135 and 136 supra these facts will not be analyzed by the Tribunal 153. On the other part, the representatives’ arguments on the violation of Article 5 will be analyzed in chapter X infra on reparations, since those arguments refer to consequences of the violations already declared in the present Judgment. 154. Therefore, this Tribunal considers that the right to humane treatment guaranteed by Article 5(1) of the Convention. X REPARATIONS 155. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.172 The Court has based its decisions in this sense on Article 63(1) of the American Convention.173 156. According to the considerations exposed regarding the merits and the violations 172 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 156, para. 25; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 404, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 15, para. 156. 173 Article 63(1) of the Convention states that: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] 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.