liberty enshrined in Article 7(1), 7(2) and 7(5) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof to his detriment. 221. Given the ruling, the Court deems that it is not necessary to rule on the alleged violation of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 7 of the American Convention. 222. Lastly, the representatives argued the violation of Articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the American Convention, due to the rejection of a writ of habeas corpus filed by the alleged victim’s defense counsel, based on the alleged torture and abuse suffered by the Mr. Valenzuela that, in fact, refers to aspects of humane treatment, which have already been examined with respect to Article 5 of the Convention. Therefore, these arguments will not be examined. C. Conclusion 223. This Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty enshrined in Articles 7(1), 7(2) and 7(5) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. IX REPARATIONS183 224. 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 caused damage entails the duty to adequately repair it, and that this provision includes a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on the responsibility of a State.184 225. Reparation for damages caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which is to reinstate the situation that existed prior to the commission of the violation. If this is not feasible, as occurs in most cases of human rights violations, this Court will order measures to safeguard the violated rights and repair the consequences that the violations produced. 185 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant various measures of reparation, in order to compensate the damage in a comprehensive manner, so that in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance to the damage caused.186 226. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven damages, as well as with the measures requested to repair the resulting damages. Therefore, the Court must observe such coincidence in order to adjudge and declare according to law. 187 Article 63 of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 59. 185 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 26, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 60. 186 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 60. 187 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 61. 183 184 54