26 reasonable time.67 The principle of proportionality implies, also, a rational relationship between the precautionary measure and the purpose sought, so that the sacrifice inherent in the restriction of the right to liberty is not exaggerated or excessive compared to the advantages obtained from this restriction and the achievement of the purpose sought.68 123. Based on the foregoing, the Court declares that the State violated Articles 7(5) and 8(2) of the American Convention, insofar as the pre-trial detention of Mr. Barreto Leiva exceeded the temporal, reasonable and proportional limits to which it should have been subjected. All of the above entailed, in addition, the violation of the right to personal liberty, embodied in Article 7(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein. VII REPARATIONS 124. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation.69 The Court has based its decisions on this particular subject pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention.70 125. In accordance with the above considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared to be such in the preceding chapters, as well as in the light of the criteria embodied in the Court’s case-law in connection with the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations,71 the Court will now address the requests for reparations made by the Commission and the representative, as well as the State’s observations thereof, in order to adopt the measures required to redress the damage. 1. Injured Party 126. The Court considers that Mr. Barreto Leiva is the “injured party” in his capacity of victim of the violations which have been proven to be committed to his detriment, as a result of which he is entitled to the reparations as may be set by the Tribunal. 127. In relation to the wife and daughters of Mr. Barreto Leiva, for whom the representative requested compensation, the Court notes that the Commission did not declare them as victims of any violation of the Convention in its Report on Merits and that, in the application, the Commission identified Mr. Barreto Leiva as the only 67 Cf. Case of Bayarri V. Argentina, supra note 21, para. 74. 68 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador, supra note 58, para. 93. 69 See 76; and Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 404, and Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 6, para. 156. 70 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. 71 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 406, and Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 6, para. 157.