73 application, the Inter-American Court will not examine them and will not make any further observations in this regard. XI REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the Convention235) 220. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to repair it adequately236 and that this provision “embodies a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”237 221. This Court has established that reparations must be related to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the damage proven, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Consequently, the Court must respect all these factors to ensure that its ruling is appropriate and in keeping with the law.238 222. The Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, together with the State’s arguments, so as to order measures designed to repair the damage caused to the victims. Regarding the State’s arguments, the Court observes that it presented specific arguments with regard to only some of the requested measures of reparation. Otherwise, in general, Mexico asked the Court to reject “any claim for reparation presented by the [Commission] or the petitioners.” In addition, it asked that any measures ordered “should be designed to repair the violation committed and not to make the victims more rich or provide double reparation,” and that any reparations should be those “that can be required under international law and [the Court’s] jurisprudence.” Lastly, it asked that the public policy measures implemented by the State be considered guarantees of non-repetition. 223. The Court recalls that the victim in the present case is an indigenous woman, in a particularly vulnerable situation, and this will be taken into account in the reparations awarded in this Judgment. Furthermore, the Court finds that the obligation to make reparation to a victim belonging to an indigenous or tribal community may call for measures that encompass the community239 (infra paras. 243, 244, and 267 to 270). 235 Article 63(1) of the American Convention states: 1. 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. 236 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 18, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 18, para. 211. 237 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 43; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 18, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 18, para. 211. 238 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 33, para. 362, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 20, para. 227. 239 Cf. Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C. No. 15, paras. 96 and 97; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 86, and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 194.