163. Based on all of the above, and in consideration of the State's acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for: (a) the violation of the rights to freedom of expression, the principle of legality, movement and residence, and job stability, recognized in articles 13, 9, 22 and 26 of the Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Emilio Palacio Urrutia, (b) the violation of the rights to freedom of expression and the principle of legality, recognized in Articles 13 and 9 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga and César Enrique Pérez Barriga, and (c) the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(f) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga and César Enrique Pérez Barriga. The Court also concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of the rights to personal liberty and property, pursuant to Articles 7 and 21 of the American Convention. VIII REPARATIONS 164. 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 caused harm entails the obligation to adequately repair it, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on State responsibility. 233 The Court has also established that reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the declared violations, the proven harm, as well as the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must analyze said concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law. 234 165. Consequently, without prejudice to any form of reparation that is subsequently agreed between the State and the victims, and based on the considerations set forth on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in this Judgment, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the victims’ representatives, as well as the State's observations thereon, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures aimed at repairing the harm caused. 235 A. Injured Party 166. This Court considers the injured party, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, to be the victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga and César Enrique Pérez Barriga to be the “injured party”, who, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VII, will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7., par. 24 and 25, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, par. 268. 233 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, par. 110, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, par. 268. 234 235 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, par. 25 and 26, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, par. 269. 54