the suspension of any type of forestry exploitation, ordering the implementation of the decisions adopted on the applications for amparo that were filed. During this period of time the illegal exploitation of the collective property continued. 409. Furthermore, regarding the 1993 decisions of the Constitutional Court and of the Supreme Court, the proven facts reveal that CODECHOCÓ signed the logging contracts immediately after the first instance judgment of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Quibdó in 1993, even though it was annulled by the said decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court that year. The Court has seen no evidence that the said contracts were annulled or terminated. 410. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the State did not ensure an effective remedy to rectify the illegality of the logging on the collective territories of the Afrodescendant communities of the Cacarica River basin; nor did it guarantee that the decisions of domestic courts that protected the rights of the Afro-descendant communities of the Cacarica River basin to their collective property were complied with fully. Consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25(2)(a) and (c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the communities of the Cacarica River basin. X REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 411. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention,656 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation,657 and that this provision “reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”658 In addition, this Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must analyze these factors in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with law. 659 412. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, insofar as possible, full restitution, which consists in the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will decide measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to repair the consequences of these violations.660 Thus, the Court has considered it necessary to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally, so that in addition to 656 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes: “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.” 657 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 243. 658 Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and costs, para. 50, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 243. 659 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 110, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 245. 660 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 244. 130