40 create doubts in those charged with applying the restriction, or the opportunity for them to act arbitrarily and discretionally, interpreting the restriction broadly.”132 135. In regard to the standard of legality of the restriction, the State established before the Court that it was based on Articles 146 of the Political Constitution; 3, 134, and 136 of the Penal Code of Procedure noted by the State (supra para. 128). However, the Court has found that these relate, in general, to the powers or functions of the Procurator General and they do not clearly and precisely define the exceptional circumstances that warranted the restriction imposed on Mr. Alibux. Similarly, no legislation was provided to determine the procedure for applying a restriction nor the procedure that would have allowed the alleged victim to challenge the restriction.133 C. Conclusion 136. Taking into account that which is established in Article 22 of the Convention and the information provided by the State, the Court concludes that based on the aforementioned regulations, there is not a clear and specific reguation that establishes the legality of the restriction on the freedom of movement in this case. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State applied a restriction on the right of Mr. Alibux to leave the country without establishing the requirement of legality, in violation of Article 22, sections 2 and 3 of the American Convention. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 137. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,134 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.135 138. Based on the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed by analyzing the claims submitted by the Commission, in light of the criteria established in its case law in regards to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations, in order to decide measures designed to redress the damage caused to the victim.136 132 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra para. 125. 133 In this sense, in the public hearing, as well as through various requirements of this Court (supra para. 26) a request made made upon the State to provide the domestic regulations that govern the restriction on leaving the country imposed on those charged or under investigation for the commission of a crime. However, this information was not provided. Communications of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court on February 22 and November 12, 2013 (REF.: CDH-12.608/061 and 071) (case file of Merits, folios 406 and 495). 134 Article 63(1) of the Convention provides that “[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.” 135 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of J., supra, para. 383. 136 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparaciones, and Costas, supra, paras. 25 a 27, and Case of J., supra, para. 385.