Silvestre. In this regard, it pointed out that both Article 8 of the Convention and the Court’s jurisprudence exclude the validity of evidence obtained under any type of coercion. 81 Therefore, it concluded that the sentence handed down against the defendants “violates the guarantees of legality and legal certainty, as well as the correct application of the law, [since there was no] proper assessment of the evidence.” 61. The subsequent criminal judgment of April 18, 2013 (supra para. 51), revoked the conviction of September 6, 2001 (supra para. 46), acquitted Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre of the crimes of violent theft of a motor vehicle, damage to property, homicide, injuries and organized crime, and ordered their “immediate and complete release.” The aforementioned Collegiate Chamber considered “obligatory the diffuse control of conventionality,” and analyzed the assessment of the evidence, “ensuring that it complied with national law, international human rights standards […] as well as […] the Court’s mandatory case law.” Furthermore, this judgment stated that “the guiding and binding criteria of the Court provide a foundation for this collegiate court, not only because of their binding nature but also because the International Court may be regarded as an interpreter […] of the content of the American Convention.”82 62. Nevertheless, the Court points out that although these domestic rulings were particularly significant in establishing the basis for reaching a friendly settlement agreement in this case, these decisions were issued 15 years, 10 months and 11 days after the violations occurred. Throughout this time, Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre were deprived of their liberty in violation of their human rights. Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that the State implement reparation measures for the non-repetition of actions similar to this case in Mexico. VII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention in the context of the approval of the friendly settlement agreement) 63. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention,83 the Court has held that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage creates a duty to make adequate reparation84 and that this provision, based on a general concept of law, constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on State responsibility.85 81 In this regard, the judgment states that the appellate court judge should have considered that: 1) ‘‘from their first statements at prosecution, both [defendants] stated that their injuries had been caused by state officials;” 2) the “circumstances under which they were detained,” since this “was carried out without an arrest warrant;” 3) the “context that precedes this case with respect to use of coercion to obtain the confessions and statements.” With regard to this last point, the ruling took into consideration, inter alia, a report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, which indicated that, “in standard practice [there exists] a great risk that findings are […] produced through coercion.” Cf. Judgment of direct amparo action 778/2012, supra note 79, pages 275 and 276. 82 The domestic court regarded the conventionality control as “the unofficial investigation that judges of any jurisdiction should conduct to determine if the standards are compatible […] with the American Convention.” Cf. Judgment issued April 18, 2013 by the First Criminal Collegiate Chamber of Texcoco (file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, pages 4440, 4450 and 4451). 83 Article 63(1) of the Convention provides that, “[when] a violation of a right or liberty protected by [the] Convention is determined, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his violated right or freedom. It should also rule, if appropriate, to redress the consequences of the measure or situation that contributed to the violation of these rights and the payment of a fair compensation to the injured party.” 84 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 213. 85 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 43, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra note 84, para. 213. 20