60 Rule of Law, separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary. However, the Court has referred to the concept of democracy under interpretation provisions. Indeed, the Court has indicated that “any fair demands by democracy must […] guide the interpretation of the Convention and, particularly, those provisions that are critically related to the preservation and operation of democratic institutions.”241 Furthermore, in the case of the Constitutional Court, the Court stated that: the Preamble to the Convention reaffirms the intention of the American States to “consolidate in th[e] hemisphere, within the framework of democratic institutions, a system of personal liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights [and obligations] of man.” This requirement is consistent with the interpretation rule contained in Article 29(c) of the Convention. The facts of the instant case are contrary to the requirements of the Convention.242 Based on the considerations above, the Court was not declaring a violation of Article 29(c), but was defining the scope of the obligation contained in Article 1(1) regarding the duty to respect and guarantee rights. 223. Therefore, the Court finds that the interpretation problems that may affect the instant case are those concerning the rights analyzed herein, such as the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Consequently, this Court rejects the alleged violation of Articles 29(c) and 29(d) of the American Convention regarding Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. IX REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 224. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation that causes damage generates the duty to make adequate reparations.243 In its decisions in this regard, the Court has based its considerations on Article 63(1) of the American Convention.244 225. In accordance with the considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention as declared in the foregoing chapters, as well as in light of the criteria adopted by the Court in its prior decisions regarding the nature and the scope of the obligation to repair,245 the Court will now examine the claims made by the Commission and by the representative and the position of the State, in order to determine the measures aimed at redressing the damage. 241 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 232, para. 44. 242 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 60, para. 111. 243 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 18, para. 131, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 12, para. 156. 244 Article 63(1) of the Convention sets forth that: 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. 245 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 243, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43, and Case of the “ White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 7, paras. 76 to 79.