69 administrative court 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.231 222. In this case, the Court has evaluated the results achieved in these contentious administrative proceedings, which include some decisions that include reparations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. These decisions will be taken into account when establishing the pertinent reparations for the violations of the Convention declared in this Judgment. * * * 223. The Court has established that the States are obligated to effectively guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity. Part of this obligation is the duty to investigate the alleged violations of these rights. This duty derives from Article 1(1) of the Convention in combination with the substantive right that must be protected or guaranteed.232 224. The Tribunal notes that, in cases of a violation of the right to life, the next of kin of the victims have the right to judicial access. 225. The Court concludes that the domestic procedures and proceedings have not constituted effective recourse of a character that could guarantee access to justice and the right to the truth, the investigation and punishment of those responsible, and the comprehensive reparation of the consequences of the violations. Based on the preceding findings, and on the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility, 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 the three surviving victims and the next of kin of the deceased victims, as identified in the Appendix on victims of this Judgment, which, for these effects, forms part of the Judgment. IX REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)233 226. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation which causes damage gives rise to a duty to make adequate reparations.234 The obligation 231 Cf. Case of the Massacres of Ituango, supra note 15, para. 341 and 342. 232 Cf. Case of the Castro Castro Prison, para. 253; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 119; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 147; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 297; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 92. 233 Article 63(1) of the Convention states 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 this right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted that breach of such a right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 234 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 199; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 413; and Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 16, para. 141.