63 Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras and José Rubén Rivera Rivera, without any of the perpetrators or masterminds behind the disappearances having been identified and brought to trial, and without the truth of the facts being known. Only the whereabouts of Gregoria Herminia Contreras have been determined owing to the actions of a non-State body. Thus a situation of total impunity prevails. From the moment the investigations were launched, the lack of diligence, exhaustiveness and seriousness has been evident. In particular, the failure to comply with the duty to open an investigation ex officio, the absence of clear and logical lines of investigation that would have taken into account the context of the facts and their complexity, the long periods of procedural inactivity, the refusal to provide information on the military operations, and the lack of diligence and exhaustiveness in the investigations by the authorities in charge of them, permit the Court to conclude that all the domestic proceedings have not constituted effective remedies to determine the fate or to discover the whereabouts of the victims, or to guarantee the rights of access to justice and to know the truth, through the investigation and eventual punishment of those responsible, and full reparation of the consequences of the violations. 177. For the said reasons, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 7(6), 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras, and José Rubén Rivera Rivera, and their next of kin. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 178. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,277 the Court has established that any violation of an international obligation which has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation.278 179. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal connection to the facts of the case, the violations declared and the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the corresponding harm. Therefore, the Court must verify the concurrence of these elements in order to rule in keeping with law.279 180. Considering the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representative, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law with regard to the nature and scope of the obligation to provide 277 Article 63(1) stipulates that, “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] 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.” 278 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 19, para. 126, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 19, para. 143. 279 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 196, para. 110; Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 19, para. 129, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 19, para. 146.