next of kin of the Landaeta Mejías brothers, in addition to feelings of insecurity, frustration and helplessness, thus affecting their mental and moral integrity. Therefore the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of: María Magdalena Mejías (mother); Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz (father): Victoria Eneri and Leydis Rossimar, both surnamed Landaeta Galindo (sisters); Francy Yellut Parra Guzmán (Igmar Landaeta’s permanent companion), and Johanyelis Alejandra Landaeta Parra (Igmar Landaeta’s daughter). VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 290. Under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 385 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 is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 386 291. Based on the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to provide reparation, in order to establish measures aimed at redressing the harm caused to the victims. 387 292. The Court has 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 repair the respective harm; hence, it must observe the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and pursuant to law. 388 293. The Court recalls that, under Article 78(2) of the Convention, 389 the State is obliged to comply with this Judgment. A. Injured party 294. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 63(1) of the American Convention, it considers the injured party to be those who have been declared a victim of the violation of any of the rights recognized therein. Therefore, in this case, the Court consider that the following are the “injured party”: Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz, María Magdalena Mejías Camero, Francy Yellut Parra Guzmán, Johanyelis Alejandra Landaeta Parra, Victoria Eneri 385 Article 63(1) of the Convention establishes that “[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.” 386 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 25, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People), supra, para. 412. 387 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People), supra, para. 415. 388 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People), supra, para. 414. 389 Article 78(2) of the American Convention, concerning the denunciation of the Convention by a State, stipulates that: “Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party concerned from the obligations contained in this Convention with respect to any act that may constitute a violation of those obligations and that has been taken by that State prior to the effective date of denunciation.” 82