- 73 - in the terms of Article 5(1) of the American Convention. Regarding the other family members, insufficient evidence has been provided to allow the Court to establish an additional violation of their right to personal integrity, beyond that already acknowledged by the State. In addition, the Court considers that the exile endured by Iván Cepeda and Claudia Girón owing to the unsafe situation related to their search for justice resulted in a violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to their detriment. Lastly, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 11 of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Senator Cepeda Vargas. V REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 211. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,309 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately,310 and that this “provision embodies a norm of customary law that is one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”311 A. INJURED PARTY 212. Since no dispute subsists in this regard, the Court considers that the “injured parties” are Manuel Cepeda Vargas and his next of kin as follows: Iván Cepeda Castro, María Cepeda Castro, Olga Navia Soto (deceased), Claudia Girón Ortiz, María Estella Cepeda Vargas, Ruth Cepeda Vargas, Gloria María Cepeda Vargas, Álvaro Cepeda Vargas and Cecilia Cepeda Vargas (deceased). All of them will be beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by this Court. 213. Taking into account the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility and the findings concerning this acknowledgement, as well as the merits of the case and the violations of the Convention declared in the corresponding chapters, the Court has examined the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives and the State’s arguments in this regard in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,312 and will proceed to order measures tending to repair the said violations. 309 Article 63(1) of the Conventions stipulates 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.” 310 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 223, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 327. 311 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra note 56, para. 38. Also, Cf. Cesti Hurtado v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, para. 35, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 180, para. 200. 312 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra note 310, paras. 25 to 27; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre vs. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 228, and Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 95.