44 142. The alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention was argued by the representatives but not by the Inter-American Commission. As per that established by this Tribunal, the representatives may claim violations of rights different to those already included in the application presented by the Commission. All the rights enshrined in the American Convention are vested in them, and to not permit this would be a wrongful restriction to their condition of subjects of the International Human Rights Law. It is understood that the above, regarding other rights, complies with the rights already included in the application.87 143. The arbitrary arrest and the repeated non-recognition of Mr. Acosta Calderón’s right to a due process constitutes a situation in which the psychic and moral integrity could have been affected. However, in the present case, the Court does not have enough elements to issue a ruling on the violation of Article 5 of the Convention. XIII REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION OBLIGATION TO REPAIR 144. In accordance with the analysis set forth in previous chapters, the Court declared, based on the facts of this case, that the State violated Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, all of them in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, and it did not comply with the obligation to adopt rules of domestic legislation pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderón in the terms of paragraphs 70, 71, 81 through 84, 99, 100, 107, 108, 114, 115, 119, 120, 124 through 126, 135, and 138 of this Judgment. 145. This Court has held, on a number of occasions, that it is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation resulting in harm carries with it an obligation to repair it adequately.88 To these effects, the Court has used Article 63(1) of the American Convention as a basis, according to which, [i]f 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. Therefore, the Tribunal goes on to consider the measures necessary to repair the damages caused to Mr. Acosta Calderón for the mentioned violations of the Convention. 146. As has been indicated by the Court, Article 63(1) of the American Convention constitutes a rule of customary law that enshrines one of the fundamental principles on contemporary international law on state responsibility. Thus, when an illicit act is imputed to the State, there immediately arises a responsibility on the part of the state 87 Cfr. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 66, para. 28; Case of “Children’s Rehabilitation”, supra note 59, para. 125; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 57, para. 179. 88 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 120; Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para 86; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 133.