- 90 282. In addition, the Court has established that the obligation to ensure rights, included in Article 1(1) of the Convention, entails the obligation of the States Parties to organize the government apparatus and, in general, all the structures by means of which public powers are exercised, so that they are able to ensure legally the free and full exercise of human rights. As part of this obligation, States are legally bound to prevent, within reason, human rights violations, and to investigate, genuinely and with the means at their disposal, any violations committed within their jurisdiction so as to identify those responsible in order to impose the pertinent sanctions and to ensure adequate redress to the victim.447 283. Nevertheless, the Court considers that, taking into account the duration of the detention and the effectiveness of the application for habeas corpus that was filed, it is unnecessary to rule on the alleged failure to investigate the detention of Mr. Chévez de la Rocha. Therefore, the Court concludes that it is not necessary to issue a ruling on the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Luis Alonso Chévez of the Rocha. VII-5 OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 284. The representatives argued that “the violation of the right to personal integrity, and also the right to honor and dignity [had been] proved owing to the disruption of the victims’ life project,” so that there had been an autonomous violation of these rights. In addition, they indicated that, in this case, in addition to the violations that had already been declared, the right to defend human rights had been violated, as an autonomous and independent right that, although it was not expressly recognized in the text of the Convention, was protected by Articles 13(1), 15, 16(1), 23(1)(a) and 25(1) of this instrument. 285. Based on the conclusions set out in the preceding chapters, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine, autonomously and separately, the arguments of the representatives indicated supra. However, the arguments presented concerning the effects caused to the victims will be taken into account as pertinent when ordering the corresponding reparations. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 286. Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention,448 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make adequate redress,449 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.450 447 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 166, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 47. 448 Article 63(1) of the American 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.” 449 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. vs. Chile, supra, para. 149. 450 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 25, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 149.