81 previous occasions, the Court cannot review laws in abstract which were not applied or dit not have effects on the specific case.314 X REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 208. Pursuant to the terms of article 63(1) of the American Convention,315 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation316 and that this provision “reflects a customary norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law regarding the responsibility of the States.”317 209. This Tribunal has established that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the declared 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.318 210. In consideration of the violations declared in the preceding chapters, the Tribunal shall address the requests for reparations made by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State’s arguments thereof, in light of the criteria embodied in the Court’s case law in connection with the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations,319 in order to adopt the measures required to repair the damage caused to the victims. As regards the State’s motions, the Court notes that the State only submitted specific pleadings on some reparation measures requested. In all other respects, in general terms, Mexico requested the Tribunal to reject any request for reparation submitted by the Commission or the petitioners. A. Injured Party 211. According to article 63(1) of the American Convention, an injured party is a party that has been declared a victim of the violation of a right enshrined in the Convention.320 The victims in this case are Messrs. Teodoro Cabrera García and 314 Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 50; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra note 99, para. 154 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 51. 315 Article 63.1 of the Convention provides: “[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.” 316 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 v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 203; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 231. 317 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 203; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 231. 318 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C N° 191, para. 110; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 204; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 262. 319 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra note 316, para. 25 to 27; Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra note 313, para. 43; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala, supra note 30, paras. 76 to 79. 320 Cf. Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 224; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 232.