have her guidance. […] He feels anger and frustration when thinking of the humiliations that his mother endured.”431 265. Additionally, the Court notes that an expert opinion on the psychological impact, which the representatives presented to the Commission, concluded that Manuela’s family suffered from “psychological effects that affect their daily life with symptoms and characteristics corresponding to post-traumatic stress as a result of the deprivation of liberty and the stigma that has remained even after the death of their daughter.”432 266. The evidence in the case file allows the Court to confirm that Manuela’s direct family experienced profound suffering and anguish that affected their mental and moral integrity owing to Manuela’s detention, prosecution, imprisonment and death, which persist until today. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Manuela’s mother, father, and elder and younger son. 267. Regarding the alleged violations of Articles 11(2), 17(1) and 19 of the Convention, the Court notes that the facts related to those allegations are essentially the same as those that it has already examined in this chapter. Therefore, the Court finds that it is not necessary to rule on the alleged violations of the rights to private and family life, and to protection of the family, and the rights of the child.433 IX REPARATIONS 268. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation 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.434 The Court has also established that the reparations must have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors to rule appropriately and pursuant to law.435 In addition, the Court finds that, in this case, the reparations should include an analysis that not only establishes the right of the victims to obtain reparation, but also incorporates a gender perspective in both their formulation and their implementation.436 269. Consequently, and based on the considerations set forth on the merits and on 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, as well as the observations made on these by the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law 431 Affidavit made by Manuela’s younger son on February 26, 2021 (evidence file, folio 3807). Expert opinion on the psychological impact on the members of Manuela’s family provided by Rosa Margarita O'Farrill Dominguez, Clinical psychologist and consultant on human rights on July 17, 2012 (evidence file, folios 1558 to 1560, 1562, and 1564). 432 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 138, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 92. 433 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 Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 95. 434 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 Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 163. 435 436 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 215. 75