160. With regard to the Commission’s arguments that the denunciations made by Mr. Grijalva to his institution and to the media are among the activities that may be undertaken by human rights defenders, this Court considers that Mr. Grijalva Bueno, in his position as a member of the Ecuadorian Navy and as a public official, had the duty and the obligation to denounce serious human rights violations. In the instant case, Mr. Grijalva acted in defense of human rights by denouncing the torture, forced disappearance and deaths of three persons, of which he had knowledge by reason of his position. Public officials, including members of the armed forces, must denounce serious human rights violations whenever they have knowledge of them, as an obligation that should be constitutionally and legally enshrined. It is incumbent upon the State to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that public officials who make this type of complaint are not subject to reprisals and that they receive proper protection. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that public officials usually have early knowledge of such acts because of the functions they perform. 161. The State should ensure that appropriate conditions are in place so that public officials can freely denounce such matters without being subjected to threats or other types of harassment. Therefore, as the Court has pointed out with respect to human rights defenders, mutatis mutandis, reprisals produce a social effect of harassment and fear, resulting in intimidation, since they silence and inhibit the work of these persons.133 In this sense, it is essential that the State does not misuse punitive or criminal proceedings - or military proceedings - such as in the instant case, to subject public officials to groundless trials and it must also safeguard judicial guarantees. Therefore, in the instant case, the State should have provided proper protection so that Mr. Grijalva could freely report the human rights violations of which he was aware without retaliation. 162. The Court concludes that the State violated the freedom of expression enshrined in Article 13(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Aníbal Vicente Grijalva Bueno. IX REPARATIONS 163. 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 make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.134 The Court has also established that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proven, and the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must examine the concurrence of these elements in order to rule appropriately and according to the law.135 164. Reparation for the harm caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of Cf. Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 361, paras. 69 to 70. 134 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Guachalá Chimbó et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 222. 135 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Guachalá Chimbó et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 222. 133 42