92 XI REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the Convention368) 245. 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 produced harm entails the obligation to repair it adequately369 and that this provision “embodies a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.” 370 246. This Court has established that reparations must be related to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the damage proven, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Consequently, the Court must respect all these factors to ensure that its ruling is appropriate and in keeping with the law.371 247. The Commission expressed that it recognizes and appreciates the various measures to repair that have been adopted by the State, but added that these are not sufficient given the context of the present case. 248. The representatives noted that, despite acknowledging the recent willingness of the State of Brazil in adopting measures, principally, in regards to the recovery of memory of the victims of the military dictatorship in the country, the measures indicated by the State are insufficient, inadequate, and are not in line with the parameters established by the Inter-American System on reparations for gross violations of human rights. 249. The State expressed that it does not intend to deny the right of the next of kin of the victims to a material and symbolic reparation in accordance with the facts of the application. Nevertheless, it considered that all of the petitions formulated by both the Commission and the representatives were or are being carried out. In addition, Brazil referenced other cases in which the Court assessed the amount paid at the domestic level and took them into consideration when determining the payment at the international level in order to avoid “a real compensatory bis in idem.” Lastly, it considered that the Court should consider the public expenses incurred in regard to the implementation of measures of nonrepetition, the search for memory and the truth, and the payment of compensation measures. 368 Article 63(1) of the American Convention states: 1. 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. 369 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 45, para. 203, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 231. 370 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 50; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 45, para. 203, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 231. 371 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 187, para. 110; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 45, para. 204, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 262.