26 and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, and for failure to comply with the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Pedro Huilca Tecse: Martha Flores Gutiérrez, the alleged victim’s companion; his children, Pedro Humberto Huilca Gutiérrez, Flor de María Huilca Gutiérrez, Katiuska Tatiana Huilca Gutiérrez, José Carlos Huilca Flores and Indira Isabel Huilca Flores, and also Julio César Escobar Flores, stepson of the alleged victim and son of Martha Flores Gutiérrez. * * * 84. The Court considers that the State’s acquiescence constitutes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and to the exercise of the principles that inspire the American Convention.22 VIII OBLIGATION TO REPAIR 85. In accordance with contents of the previous chapters, the Court has found that, in the instant case, the rights embodied in Articles 4(1) (Right to Life) and 16 (Freedom of Association) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, were violated to the detriment of Pedro Huilca Tecse, and Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, were violated to the detriment of the following next of kin of Pedro Huilca Tecse: Martha Flores Gutiérrez, the victim’s companion; his children, Pedro Humberto Huilca Gutiérrez, Flor de María Huilca Gutiérrez, Katiuska Tatiana Huilca Gutiérrez, José Carlos Huilca Flores and Indira Isabel Huilca Flores, and also Julio César Escobar Flores, stepson of the victim and son of Martha Flores Gutiérrez, in the terms of paragraphs 79 and 83 of this judgment. 86. This Court has reiterated the principle of international law applicable in this matter, that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.23 To this end, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, according to which: 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. 87. As the Court has indicated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention embodies a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. When an unlawful act occurs, 22 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al.. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 84; Case of Molina Theissen. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C No. 106, para. 46; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 50. 23 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 230; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 22, para. 85; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 52.