236. In addition, the Court has indicated that “States must abstain from taking any action that is directly or indirectly addressed, in any way, at creating situations of discrimination de jure or de facto.”295 States are obliged to “take positive steps to reverse or to change discriminatory situations that exist in their societies to the detriment of a specific group of people. This entails the special obligation of protection that the State must exercise with regard to acts and practices of third parties who, with its tolerance or acquiescence, create, maintain or promote discriminatory situations.”296 The State’s non-compliance, by any discriminatory practice, with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights results in its international responsibility.297 2. Conclusions 237. Therefore, the Court observes that, in this case, the situation of special vulnerability of the Haitian migrants was due, inter alia, to: (i) the absence of preventive measures to adequately address situations relating to migratory control on the land border with Haiti and based on their situation of vulnerability; (ii) the violence deployed by the illegal and disproportionate use of force against unarmed migrants; (iii) the failure to investigate the said violence, the absence of testimony by and the participation of the victims in the criminal proceedings, and the impunity of the events; (iv) the detentions and collective expulsion without the due guarantees; (v) the lack of adequate medical attention and treatment to the injured victims, and (vi) the demeaning treatment of the corpses and the failure to return them to the next of kin. 238. All of the foregoing demonstrates that, in the instant case, there was de facto discrimination against the victims in the case owing to their condition as migrants, which resulted in preventing them from enjoying the rights that the Court has declared violated in this Judgment. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State did not respect or ensure the rights of the Haitian migrants without discrimination in violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 22(9) and 25 thereof. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 239. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,298 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation,299 and that this provision “reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”300 295 Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 103, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 80. 296 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 104, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 80. 297 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 85, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra, para. 268. 298 Article 63.1 of the Convention establishes that: “[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.” 299 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 245. 300 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 43, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 245. 64