43 the processing of the case, the State did not allege its federal structure as an excuse for failing to comply with an international obligation. According to the State, these comments constituted an explanation about progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission’s Report No. 13/07, and this was not denied by the Commission or the representatives. 149. Based on the above, the Court does not find that the State has failed to comply with the obligations arising from Article 28 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1 and 2 thereof. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention)135 150. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that results in harm entails the responsibility to make adequate reparation.136 All aspects of this obligation to make reparation are regulated by international law.137 The Court has based its decisions on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 151. Pursuant to the findings on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in the corresponding chapters, as well as in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,138 the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and by the representatives, and the corresponding arguments of the State, so as to order measures tending to repair the said violations. A) Injured party 152. According to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers the injured party to be the person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right embodied therein. In this case, the Court found that the State had violated the human rights of the following persons: Iracema Garibaldi, Darsônia Garibaldi, Vanderlei Garibaldi, Fernando Garibaldi, Itamar Garibaldi, Itacir Garibaldi and Alexandre Garibaldi (supra para. 140), consequently, it considers them “injured parties” and beneficiaries of the following reparations that it orders. B) Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 153. In this section, the Court will decide measures of satisfaction which seek to repair non-pecuniary damage and that are not of a pecuniary nature, and will order measures of public scope or repercussion. 135 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates: 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 136 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 221, and Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 30, para. 155. 137 Cf. Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 221, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 14, para. 404. 138 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 136, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 222, and Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 30, para. 156.