126 As the expert witnesses, Rodrigo Uprimny and Torres Corredor correctly stated (supra para. 111(d)(1) and 111(d)(2)), the judgment of a judicial authority in the administrative jurisdiction rules on the fact that an unlawful damage has been produced and not on the State’s responsibility for failing to comply with human rights standards and obligations. As regards the scope of the judgment, the sole means of reparation the administrative jurisdiction can order when the damage has been proved is financial compensation. 342. Both expert witnesses who appeared before the Court emphasized the constraints of the administrative proceedings owing to procedural delays and congestion. The expert witness proposed by the State indicated that, in first instance, the proceedings could take an average of three to five years and, in second instance, four to eight years (supra para. 111(e)(1)). Other limits to genuine access to justice in the case of the action for direct reparation are that it has to be presented by a lawyer, it extinguishes inevitably after two years, and the lack of administrative courts in all geographical areas of the country. 343. In this case, however, the Court appreciates the importance of some of the results achieved by the administrative proceedings, which include several elements relating to reparations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and it will take this into account when establishing the pertinent reparations, on condition that the judgments in these proceedings are considered res judicata and that they are reasonable in view of the circumstances of the case. * * * 344. The Court concludes that the domestic proceedings and procedures have not constituted effective recourses to ensure access to justice and to the whole truth about the facts, or the investigation and punishment of those responsible, and the reparation of the consequences of the violations. Consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of all those whose rights were violated, and who were not ensured full access to justice, and who are indicated in paragraphs 72, 138, 168, 200, 235, 248, 265, 269, 276 and 279 of this judgment. XVI REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION OBLIGATION TO REPAIR 345. Pursuant to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility (supra para. 19, 59, 63 and 64), and also the findings on merits described in the preceding chapters, the Court has declared the violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 5(2), 6(2), 7(1) and 7(2), 8(1), 11(2), 19, 21, 22(1) and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Court has indicated repeatedly that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.256 To this end, Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: 256 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 174; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 195; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 294.