101. Based on the foregoing, and taking into account that the State itself recognizes and emphasizes that the arrest and detention of José Delfín Acosta Martínez were based on discriminatory motives, this Court finds that Articles 7(1), 7(3), and 24 were violated in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Acosta Martínez. B.3. Conclusion 102. Taking into account the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State and the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the arrest and deprivation of liberty of Mr. Acosta Martínez were carried out based on a legal provision that does not comply with the requirements of the Convention. Likewise, the broadness of the provisions regulating police authority to detain people for committing offenses enabled the use of racial profiling and detentions based on discriminatory practices, for which reason the detention was also arbitrary and discriminatory. 103. The State is therefore responsible for the violations of the rights recognized in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of José Delfín Acosta Martínez. Likewise, based on the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court recalls that Argentina is responsible for the violation of Article 7(4) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Acosta Martínez. VIII REPARATIONS 104. Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.156 This Court has also established that reparations should have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Accordingly, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with law.157 105. Consequently, based on its considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the victims’ representatives, together with the corresponding observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused to the victims. A. Injured party 106. Under the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers as injured party anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers José Delfín Acosta Martínez, Ángel Acosta Martínez, and Blanca Rosa Martínezas to be the “injured parties” and, as victims of the violations declared Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 55. 156 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 57. 157 32