36 ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS) 126 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 130. The Inter-American Commission did not submit any arguments related to Article 29 of the American Convention. 131. The representatives, in the brief of requests and arguments, alleged the violation of Article 29 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 therein,127 based on the fact that they system of protection enshrined in the Convention includes general obligations that are directly related to other rights that must be specially respected by States. According to the representatives, the violations of other rights to the detriment of the alleged victim constitute a non-compliance with the general obligations, among them, the rules of interpretation contained in Article 29 of the Convention. 132. The State, in the brief of final arguments, without mentioning the arguments related to the alleged violation of Article 29 of the Convention, requested the Court to declare that the State did not violate such article. 133. To such end, the Court finds there is no evidence regarding a violation of any of these rules that are used to construe the provisions of the American Convention. IX ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION128 134. This Court considers appropriate that the determination of the amount and payment of the just compensation for the expropriation of the legally protected interests, as well as any other measure intended to repair the violations declared in this Judgment, be made by common consent between the State and the representatives, within the term of six months as from notice of this Judgment. If an agreement is reached, the State and the representatives shall have to inform it to this Tribunal in order to confirm that said agreement was made according to the American Convention and proceed accordingly. In case of disagreement, the Court shall determine the corresponding reparations, as well as the costs and expenses. X OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 135. 126 Therefore: Cf. supra note 45. The representatives alleged the violation of this article in the brief of requests and arguments. As a consequence, the Commission, in the reports on admissibility and merits, made no express reference to the alleged violation of Article 29 of the Convention. 128 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. 127