75 c) The State does not have to acknowledge publicly any responsibility for the facts claimed or apologize, “because, as has repeatedly been indicated, it has no responsibility for the facts in which it was not involved”; d) As regards the investigation for the “failure to execute” the judicial decisions, “the Peruvian State has not been the subject of any judicial complaint”; e) It considers “inadmissible” the requests relating to the adjustment of domestic social security legislation to the international obligations of Peru “because this is a matter of parliamentary competence,” and the establishment of a Day of the Pensioner “because it bears no relation to this complaint”; and f) With regard to the repayment of costs and expenses, it indicated that “this request is not admissible because the Peruvian State has no responsibility for the facts on which the application was based.” The considerations of the Court 173. In accordance with the contents of the preceding chapters, the Court has found that, owing to the facts of this case, Articles 21 and 25 of the American Convention have been violated, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof to the detriment of Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez. This Court, in its constant jurisprudence has established that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused a damage involves the obligation to repair it adequately163. To this end, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 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. 174. As the Court has indicated, Article 63(1) of the American Convention contains a common law norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. According to this, when an illegal fact which can be imputed to the State occurs, the State’s responsibility for the violation of the international norm in question arises immediately, with the consequent obligation to repair and to make the consequences of the said violation cease164. 175. The Court observes that, subsequent to the filing of the application, the State of Peru has taken a series of measures to comply with the claims of the Commission 163 Cf. Cantos case, supra note 3, para. 66; El Caracazo case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 76; and Trujillo Oroza case. Reparations, supra note 4, para. 60. 164 Cf. Cantos case, supra note 3, para. 67; El Caracazo case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 76; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 4, para. 202.