51 right to be presumed innocent enshrined in Article 8(2) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. X REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)146 170. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international duty, which has caused damage, entails the duty to make proper reparations for such damage.147 All aspects of this duty to make reparations are governed by International Law.148 The Court has based its decisions on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 171. On the grounds of the considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention stated above, and in the light of the criteria set forth in the Tribunal’s case law as regards the nature and scope of the duty to make reparations,149 the Court shall now proceed to analyze both the claims made by the Commission and by the representatives, and the relevant arguments of the State, in order to establish the necessary measures to redress such violations. 172. Before examining the requested reparations, the Court observes that the State did not submit any specific arguments on the reparation measures requested by the Commission or the representatives, but instead it only pointed out that the claims for a condemnatory judgment made by the Commission were pointless, and requested that all the petitions submitted by the representatives of the victim be rejected because they were inadmissible and groundless. 173. Nevertheless, the State submitted arguments regarding reparations under the headings “preliminary objection” and “preliminary comments” of its answer to the application. Under the first item, it alleged that the Court may not order the State to adapt its criminal legal system to conform to Article 13 of the Convention, since it has competent jurisdiction to do therefore only when acting in an advisory capacity but not in the context of a contentious case. Likewise, in its comments on the motions by the representatives, the State alleged that: a) the Court has no authority to order the State to adapt its criminal and civil legal system to conform to international standards in the field of freedom of expression, or to order the State to take such administrative and legislative measures as may be necessary to regulate 146 Article 63(1) of the Convention provides 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. 147 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Ticona-Estrada et al., supra note 6, para. 106; and Case of ValleJaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 198. 148 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Merits. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11, para. 44; Case of Ticona-Estrada et al., supra note 6, para. 106; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 198. 149 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, supra note 147, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Ticona-Estrada et al., supra note 6, para. 107; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 199.