113. In this case, moreover, the lack of access to justice suffered by Mr. Fleury has affected his family, because during the months and years following his detention, the family has lived in fear of reprisals from the perpetrators (supra paras. 41 and 42), and this was encouraged by the above-mentioned situation of impunity. Nevertheless, although the members of the family may have been affected by the impunity, they did not attempt to file any remedies. 114. Based on the foregoing, the Court declares that the State violated the right of access to justice recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect this right established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Fleury. VIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 115. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,97 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to repair it adequately,98 and that this provision embodies a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.99 116. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal relationship to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Consequently, the Court must observe the concurrence of all these factors in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law.100 117. Based on the violations of the American Convention, the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives in light of the criteria established in its case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to repair101 so as to decide measures aimed at repairing the damage caused to the victims. A. Injured Party 118. The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right embodied therein is considered 97 This Article establishes that: “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by th[e] 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.” 98 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 239. 99 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 239. 100 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 239. 101 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra note 98, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 90, para. 180. 31