42 case, Mr. Usón Ramírez was accused and judgmentd for committing the crime in Article 505 of the COJM and not under any other “rules of disobedience” under Venezuelan law. Therefore, it is not pertinent to analyze whether such other rules are compatible with the Convention. However, this Tribunal has already considered in this Judgment that the specific crime of insult against the Armed Forces for which Mr. Usón Ramírez was judgmentd, typified in Article 505 of the COJM, does not strictly describe criminal behavior, the protected good or the passive subject, nor does it consider the existence of fraud, thus being a broad, vague and ambiguous codification (supra para. 57). Therefore, the Tribunal considers that such criminal statute is against Articles 9, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of such Convention (supra para. 58). 201. Likewise, the Tribunal has already considered the allegations of the parties thereto in relation to the exercise of military justice to judgment Mr. Usón Ramírez. To that end, the Court observed that the application of military justice shall be strictly reserved to active military and the domestic legislation applicable to this case did not reserve strictly the competence of the military jurisdiction for active military but it extended it to civilians and to retired military. Due to that, the Court considered that the State violated the right of Mr. Usón Ramírez to be tried by a competent court or tribunal, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations to guarantee rights, according to Article 1(1) of the Convention, as well as in relation to the general duty of adopting any necessary provisions under domestic law to make such right effective, pursuant to Article 2 of such instrument (supra paras. 116 and 119). 202. Furthermore, the Court considers the State has violated Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation with Articles 9, 13(1), 13(2), and 8(1) of the same, in the terms of paragraph 57, 58, 88, 116, and 119 of this Judgment. X REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63.1 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)151 203. There is a principle under International Law that any violation of an international obligation involving damages entails the obligation to repair such damages adequately.152 Such obligation is governed by International Law.153 The Court bases its decision on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 204. According to the considerations about the merits and violations of the Convention mentioned in the previous chapters, as well as in the light of the criteria set in the Tribunal’s 151 Article 63(1) of the Convention states 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. 152 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 9, para. 94, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para. 150. 153 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al.v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 9, para. 94, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para. 150.