State, and noted that it had exacerbated J.’s situation, contrary to fundamental human rights principles. In this regard, the Court finds that the possible effects that Ms. J.’s detention in Germany might have caused her cannot be attributed to the Peruvian State. X REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 383. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 547 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation, 548 and that this provisions reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 549 384. The 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 substantiated, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Accordingly, the Court must observe the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and according to law. 550 385. Bearing in mind the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation in order to establish the measures designed to redress the harm caused to the victim. 551 386. The Court recalls that, in this case, it determined that the specific claims for reparations of the representative were not admissible due to late presentation (supra paras. 6 and 33). Consequently, in this chapter it will only examine the Commission’s claims for reparation and the corresponding arguments of the State. Despite this, the Court notes that, in the motions and arguments brief presented within the appropriate time frame, the representative included some requests that the Court will take into account in the corresponding section. A) Injured party 387. The Court reiterates that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be the person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in this instrument. Therefore, the Court finds that Ms. J. is the “injured party,” and as a victim of the violations declared in Chapters VIII and IX she will be the beneficiary of the following measures ordered by the Court. 547 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.” 548 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 213. 549 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 25, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 213. 550 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 Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 215. 551 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 a 27, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 214. 114