79 145. The violations of the right to liberty and personal safety, to life, to physical, mental and moral integrity, to a fair trial and to judicial protection that have been established in this Judgment, are attributable to the State, which had the duty to respect and ensure said rights. Therefore, the State is responsible for nonobservance of Article 1(1) of the Convention, in connection with the violations found regarding Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of that Convention. 146. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the State did not fulfill its obligation to respect rights, embodied in Article 1(1) in connection with Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez. In addition, it finds that the State did not fulfill its obligation to respect rights, embodied in Article 1(1) in connection with Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan José Vijil Hernández. The State did not fulfill its obligation to respect rights, embodied Article 1(1) in connection with Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of María Dominga Sánchez (the mother); Reina Isabel Sánchez (sister); María Milagro Sánchez (sister); Rosa Delia Sánchez (sister); Domitila Vijil Sánchez (sister); María Florinda Vijil Sánchez (sister); Julio Sánchez (brother); Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez (brother); Celio Vijil Sánchez (brother); Donatila Argueta Sánchez (companion); Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta (daughter); Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira (companion); and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta (daughter). XIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE CONVENTION) Obligation to Redress 147. Pursuant to the foregoing explanation in previous chapters, the Court has found, in connection with the facts in this case, that Articles 7, 5, 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention were breached, all of them in combination with Article 1(1) of that Convention, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez and, in some of these instances, with one or all of his next of kin (supra 88, 103, 113 and 136). This Court has reiterated, in its case law, that it is a principle of International Law that all violations to an international obligation that have caused harm generate an obligation to adequately redress said harm.161 To this end, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, pursuant to which, [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 (not underlined in the original text). 148. As the Court has pointed out, Article 63(1) of the American Convention reflects a common law rule that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law regarding the responsibility of States. Thus, when an illegal act is attributable to a State, the latter incurs immediately the international responsibility 161 “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 3, para. 173; Cantos Case, supra note 5, para. 66; Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 37; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 76; and Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 60.