152. The Inter-American Commission argued that, in this case, the State has not complied with the obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention to respect and guarantee the rights established in that instrument, given that the State violated the rights established in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the Convention. The Commission also alleged that, independent of the domestic distribution of jurisdiction, the State "must make the Province of Chubut adopt measures to ensure compliance with the rights established in the Convention, particularly regarding due diligence in the investigation of the facts denounced by the family members of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura.” Moreover, the Commission also indicated that “the goal of safeguarding the human rights established generally in the American Convention- and the aforementioned provisions in particular - takes precedence over any reference to the domestic distribution of jurisdiction or organization of the entities comprising a federation.” 153. The representatives did not submit arguments specifically on this point. However, they "supported" the Commission's application. (supra para. 5). 154. The State did not refer to this point. However, it accepted the conclusions contained in the Report on the merits, as well as the juridical consequences derived therefrom, which includes the arguments formulated by the Commission with regard to this point (supra paras. 6 and 31). B. Considerations of the Court. 155. The Tribunal has already established a failure to comply with the obligation established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention with regard to each of the rights declared to have been violated in this Judgment (supra paras. 76, 80 to 82, 89, 107 to 108, 139, and 145). Therefore, the Court does not find it necessary to rule on this argument separately. 156. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the Commission also argued that Argentina did not adopt the necessary measures on the federal level to make the Province of Chubut investigate what happened to Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. In this regard, at different times, similar pleadings have been analyzed by the Court in the context of the obligations imposed upon States by Article 28 of the American Convention. With regard to this Article, the Tribunal has held that a pleading on an alleged failure to observe the obligations established in Article 28 of the Convention must refer to a fact of sufficient weight in order to be ruled true noncompliance. 163 In this case, the Commission’s arguments are not sufficient for the Court to declare noncompliance. For this reason, the Court will not rule on this request. XIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 157. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,164 the Court has established that any violation of an international obligation which has caused harm 163 Cf. Case of Escher et al. V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 220, and Case of Garibaldi V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 148. 164 Article 63(1) holds that: “If the Court finds that there has been to violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] 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.” 47